amendments proposed by your committee on the occasion of the Chairman's also appearing there, and including also a very delightful interview of several hours last month with the Judge of the Land Court of Massachusetts, who read a paper on this subject before the annual meeting of this Association in 1908. The first of those considerations is found on page 44 of the report in the last paragraph of a letter to the members of the Legislature, written by the committee last year, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the decision of the American Land Company against Zeiss, arising under the burned record act of California, the Court held that that law, and the practice thereunder did not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, although the actual result of it was to deprive the owner of his property without actual notice, and to transfer it to a person who claimed to be the owner, though not actually such owner. It seems to me that statement presented an enigma to the legal mind unless you take into consideration that the opinion of the Supreme Court in its final paragraph pointed out a channel open to the owner to obtain such restitution by allegations of fraud. The next consideration is on page 6, where the committee says: "In the opinion of your committee the issue is clearly drawn between the possibility of depriving the true owners of their property without actual notice on the one hand, and the speedy and inexpensive procurement of certificates of registration on the other." No safeguards should be done away with, but if there is a popular demand for registration, then no question of fees or inexpensiveness will come up, the public will demand it and use it, no matter how expensive it may be at first sight.

On page 18 the committee says: "The cases also serve to illustrate that it is the purpose of the Court to administer this law in accordance with well-recognized principles of justice, and to refuse to sacrifice due process of law to any assumed public policy of facilitating the registration of titles speedily and inexpensively."

The same remarks apply there. And finally the remarks with which the report closes on page 23, calling attention of the members to the fact that in England “After an experience with certain forms of title registration extending over about half a century, a proposition is now seriously made that that system of registration cannot be made satisfactory unless the fundamental law of real property is assimilated to that of personal property." To my notion registration is a means of assimilating within certain restrictions all real property to that of personal property, and in that way to answer a real economic demand of the times.

The motion on the adoption of the report was then put and carried.

The following is the report of the committee:

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE LAW IN RESPECT TO

THE REGISTRATION OF TITLES

To the New York State Bar Association:

I. THE COMMITTEE'S ACTIVITIES

This Committee was appointed at the meeting of the Association in 1910, pursuant to the following resolution:

That a subcommittee of five be appointed by the President to consider the question of amendments to

Chapter 444 of the Laws of 1908, otherwise known as the Land Title Registration Law under the Torrens System, in order to add to the efficiency of said law, and to report at the next annual meeting of this Association. (Report, N. Y. State Bar Assoc. 1910, Vol. 33, p. 424.)

We made a report to the annual meeting of the Association in 1911, which report will be found in Vol. 34, p. 290. In that report we called attention to the activity of the Committee in respect to the amendments which became law as Chapter 627 of the Laws of 1910. We pointed out that it was contended that the amendments of 1910, by making it more easy to procure a judgment of registration, had dispensed with certain wise precautions which were properly inserted in the law as originally passed, and that the removal of these precautions in the interest of cheapness and speed had opened the way to the successful perpetration of fraud or other injury to innocent owners through ignorance, negligence or fraud on the part of the examiner of titles, when combined with a misunderstanding of his duties on the part of the Judge directing judgment.

We expressed the opinion that the risk of depriving owners of their property, without actual notice, through ignorance, justifiable or otherwise, mistake or fraud of an examiner, might be diminished, and should be diminished. by specific requirements in the law, in respect to the method of reporting by the examiner of instruments requiring careful consideration for their proper construction, and defining more specifically the character of the examination and report by the examiner.

We suggested that in order to guard, so far as possible, against the unfortunate results of mistake, carelessness or fraud on the part of an examiner, the law should be

amended in respect to the method in which the examiner should make his report, so that the Court might be in a position to determine for itself whether, in such unusual matters as wills, peculiar covenants, adjudications and variations of descriptions in successive deeds, the examiner's conclusions are in accordance with the facts. We expressed the view that the discretion as to the method of making the report, which is lodged by the present law in the examiner, when coupled with the force given by the law to the examiner's report, is calculated to do injury to innocent. owners through the mistake, recklessness or fraud of an examiner.

We recommended that the Committee be continued and instructed to endeavor to secure further amendments to the law to obviate the criticisms which it indicated that it deemed well founded. Pursuant to our recommendations the Committee was continued for the purpose stated. We immediately set to work to perform the duty which was thus imposed upon us and consulted with others whose knowledge of the operation of the law in practice had afforded them peculiar opportunity to consider the practical effect of the present law. We formulated a bill which was introduced in both houses of the Legislature, but which was not reported out of committee in either house. The history of the last legislative session, and the character of the questions with which it was largely taken up, may account in some measure for the failure of the legislative committees to make any report upon the bill. In the Assembly the Committee on Rules took charge of all proposed legislation in the early part of the session, and thereafter no opportunities for any committee hearings were granted. A hearing on the bill was held by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, and the Chairman of your Committee attended and explained the objects of the bill. Your

Committee also prepared and forwarded to each member of the Legislature an explanatory letter. A copy of the bill; with its proposed amendments indicated in italics, and of the explanatory letter to the members of the Legislature, is hereto annexed. The letter sufficiently explains the object and reason of the proposed amendments without any elaboration in this report.

It may be proper to point out, however, that the requirements of the proposed bill for advising the court of the names of all persons who shall have filed the cautionary notice in respect to contiguous properties was inserted in order to harmonize the provisions of section 380 of the law with the provisions of section 383 thereof, and that the proposed amendment of section 385, in respect to service of summons and notice by publication, was inserted in order to harmonize the practice with the general practice in litigated matters in respect to such publication.

Your Committee is still of the opinion expressed in its former report in respect to the advisability of the amendments. which it has suggested. Except so far as the changes proposed to be affected by the bill were designed to harmonize the provisions of the law and the practice as above explained, the proposed amendments were designed to carry out the recommendations of the Committee in its former report. The Committee's criticisms are based rather upon apprehension of the possibilities of injustice to owners offered by the law, than upon actual experience of such injustice in practice.

The opposition to the Committee's efforts to secure the amendements was based upon the contention that the adoption of the proposed amendments would increase the expense of the registration and delay the issuance of a certificate of title. In the opinion of your Committee the issue is clearly drawn between the possibility of depriving