110 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



land to the lawyer, under the belief that he (the client) was signing a 

 duplicate lease. The lawyer then, on his apparent title to the land, 

 borrowed |6,000, giving a mortgage to the money-lender, who relied on the 

 record title but our supreme court held that the client's deed to his 

 lawyer was a forgery^ and that the lender must lose the money, or, at 

 least, that the mortgage given by the lawyer could not stand as against 

 the client. 



So as to genuineness of the signature of the officer taking the acknowl- 

 edgment — the records cannot establish this fact, and as there are thou- 

 sands of officers who may act, it is, as a fact, an extremely difficult fact 

 to establish. And yet, in Michigan, a deed of a married man does not 

 convey his land free from his wife's dower interest unless she both 

 executes and acknowledges the deed. A release of a mortgage appearing 

 of record may not be a real release — and so a purchaser may buy land 

 with a mortgage on it, when he thinks he is getting it unincumbered. 



Xeither a minor, nor a person of unsound mind, can convey good title to 

 land owned by the minor or lunatic, and yet the records can not establish 

 the fact of his capacity to convey. And if a young man of twenty should 

 mortgage or deed his land, he may generally get it back even from an 

 innocent subsequent purchaser years afterwards — in this state he has 

 done so after ten years and when the land was in the hands of third 

 persons who had relied on the records. And he need not either, in all 

 cases repay the consideration money he has received — that is, he may 

 spend the money and also get his land back. A person buying land must, 

 therefore, either take the risk of the legal capacity to convey of those 

 who have formerly owned the land, or he must investigate outside the 

 records and ascertain at his peril that they have capacity. 



In Michigan a man's homestead cannot be mortgaged or conveyed 

 without his wife's signature — but, in the first place, no records in this 

 State show whether the land is or is not a homestead, nor do the 

 records show whether the man is married or single, nor whether, if some 

 woman signs the deed with him. the woman is, or is not, his wife. Other 

 matters concerning real estate depending on marriage or divorce are not 

 shown by the records of deeds, and if any records show them they may 

 be in an entirely different county from that in which conveyances relat- 

 ing to the land are recorded. 



When a land owner dies no records establish satisfactorily and beyond 

 doubt who his heirs are. A subsequent holder of the land must at his 

 peril ascertain whether those claiming as heirs are really such, and, if 

 they are, whether they are all the heirs. 



The records show nothing as to title which may have been acquired by 

 some one by adverse possession, nor do they show anything as to the 

 many rights which may have been acquired by prescription. 



Under our present system it is literally impossible for the most care- 

 ful examiner of a title to be sure that his examination will show the true 

 state of the title. Aside from this another objection to our present system 

 in general is the accumulation of records. This is not in country dis- 

 tricts as serious an evil as it is in cities, but in any locality it must, as 

 time goes on, become a matter for grave consideration, whether it is 

 really worth while to keep on copying at length and preserving at public 

 expense all these records, which after all, do not, and cannot show the 

 title to any piece of land. 



But another difflcultv is that no matter how often a title has been 



