1903, and a new act was passed in 1905. The constitutionality of the original act was sustained in State vs. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437, 57 L. R. A. 297 (1902). See also Baort vs. Martin, 99 Minn. 197. 6. NEW YORK.-The New York Torrens Act was passed in 1908 after an elaborate study of the subject by a Special Commission, which held public hearings and made a full and impartial report embodying arguments both for and against the system. It contained 65 sections in 35 pages, with a limitation of 6 months. (Laws, 1908, c. 442, vol. 2, pp. 1247-1283.) The State Bar Association has taken a practical interest in suggesting amendments, and under the leadership of Mr. Charles A. Boston, of the New York City Bar, 19 sections of the act have been amended. (Consolidated Laws, 1909, vol. 4, pp. 3459-3496, secs. 370-435. Laws, 1910, c. 627.) 7. NORTH CAROLINA.-The Torrens Act of North Carolina was passed March 8, 1913, but will not go into effect until January 1, 1914. It has 40 sections covering 13 closely printed pages, and provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court, "as in other special proceedings," and makes no exception in favor of persons under disabilities. But the conclusiveness of the decree. of initial registration seems to be destroyed by another provision permitting the subsequent notation of adverse claims, liens, or charges existing at the initial registry and not shown upon the register, and permitting action to be brought upon such claim "within six months after the entry of such note." (Acts, 1913, c. 90, secs. 8-9 and 25.) 8. OHIO. The 1913 Torrens Act of Ohio contains 118 sections covering 55 pages, and limits the right of appeal to 30 days, except in cases of fraud, when the limitation is one year. As the legislature was given a free hand by constitutional amendments, this will probably be found to be the most drastic of all the acts. It will not go into operation until July 1, 1914. 9. OREGON.-The Torrens Act of Oregon was passed in 1901, with 109 sections in 29 pages, and a limitation of two years. It was a copy of the Illinois act, and has been twice amended, first in 1905 and again in 1907. (General Laws, 1901, pp. 438-467.) 10. WASHINGTON.-The Washington Torrens Act was passed in 1907 with 98 sections in 44 pages, and a limitation of 90 days, and has not yet been amended. (Session Laws, 1907, c. 250, pp. 693-738.) HAWAII.The Hawaii Torrens Act was passed in 1903, and follows the Massachusetts Act. (Laws, 1903, Act. 56, pp. 279 328.) PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.-The Philippine Islands Torrens Act was passed in 1908, and likewise follows the Massachusetts Act. (Compilation of Acts and Organic Laws, 1908, Title 40, pp. 777820.) DUE PROCESS OF LAW. To this hurried survey of Torrens legislation in the United States and its dependencies may be added a reference to two cognate causes decided by our Supreme Federal Court, the limits of this report prohibiting more than their mere citation as recent authorities upon the vexed question of "due process of law." They are American Land Co. vs. Zeiss, 219 U. S. 47, involving a California Statute; and Ochoa vs. Hernandez Y. Morales, 17 Advance Sheets U. S. Supreme Court, p. 1033, decided June 16, 1913, involving the Porto Rico Mortgage Law. CONCLUSION. In conclusion, being persuaded that the tide of Torrens legislation is rising with irresistible force, and that uniformity can best be attained in its early guidance rather than in the attempt to control it after it shall have acquired the strength and volume of a flood, with much diffidence, we submit herewith a tentative draft of an act which we trust may at least sharply direct the attention of the Conference to the need for uniform legislation on this great subject and possibly serve as the basis for such legislation. Inasmuch as ten states have already passed acts with widely divergent provisions, and most of these acts have been amended more than once, a large body of law is already in existence for the registration of titles which might with advantage be brought to uniformity; and in addition to this, the promulgation of a model Torrens Act for adoption by other states in which some such legislation will soon be passed, will present further divergencies and be the easiest way to insure that uniformity which is the ideal of this organization. It is better to mold legislation in the making than to seek to change it after it has been molded; and the events of the past year illustrate what is likely to happen on a larger scale in the future. For the great differences in the acts passed by Ohio and North Carolina might have been to a large extent obviated or harmonized if a well-considered uniform act had been put forth by this Conference for their guidance. If it be objected that land titles are matters only of local interest and not of interstate concern, and should therefore be left by this Conference for settlement wholly by local jurisdictions in any manner that may seem desirable to them without regard to uniformity, it is replied that one of the effects of registration of titles under the Torrens System will be to confer upon lands a new commercial quality by giving to them commercial mobility, by enabling owners to deal with their lands quickly, cheaply and safely, and by placing registered certificates of title. as far as possible upon an equality with registered stocks and bonds, making them marketable and readily available in all business transactions, both as collateral for loans as well as for direct sales. The residents of one state are now frequently landowners in other states or interested in loans secured on lands in other states, and as the Torrens System becomes better known and more widely established, certificates of title will freely pass from state to state, thus increasing to a tremendous extent the bankable capital of the country. And if it be desirable to have a Uniform Stock Transfer Act, it is also desirable to have a Uniform Torrens Act-a proposition which has been already settled for this Conference and carried beyond the sphere of debate by Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution, to which reference has heretofore been made. It must be admitted that, in a broad and vital sense, our land laws are antiquated, too much infused with relics of feudalism, and ill-suited to modern conditions and the requirements of business in our day and generation. It seems to us that the profession should welcome an opportunity for prac tical service in bringing this great domain of the law to a state of efficiency at least approaching that of the law merchant which has kept so much better pace with the march of commercial progress, and we believe that a Uniform Torrens Act will be a notable step in this direction. We therefore ask that this report and the tentative act attached hereto may be printed and circulated for discussion and adoption after such consideration and amendment as the Conference may deem proper. EUGENE C. MASSIE, Chairman, NATHAN WILLIAM MACCHESNEY, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICITY. Mr. President and Fellow Commissioners: As Chairman of the Publicity Committee I beg leave to make a brief oral report. During the past year the committee has used the press, particularly in the South and West, on every available occasion to further the work of the Conference by letting it be known what legislation was taking place in the different states, and how the cause of uniformity was progressing, and outlining as far as possible the program of the session now open. In addition to this, the President of the Conference has given wide publicity to its work, particularly through an article which appeared in the New York papers a few weeks ago, and I desire to commend this article to the members of the Conference for use in their respective states. It will be incorporated with the consent of my co-committeemen in our next report. The Chairman of the Executive Committee, Hon. William H. Staake, of Pennsylvania, has also been actively at work in giving publicity to the labors of the Conference. On behalf of the committee, I might say that I believe more notice has been taken of the work of the Conference this year than ever before. I observe, however, often in the press that the Conference is spoken of as "an adjunct" of the American Bar Association. The committee suggests that each Commissioner in exploiting the work of the Conference should let it be known that it is an official body composed of representatives from each state. I submit this statement, Mr. President, as the report of the committee. W. O. HART, Chairman. |