Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/297

281 LAND TRANSFER REFORM. 28 1 years* standing (Mass. Stat. 1889, c. 442); and in certain special acts, as, for example, Stat 1861, c. 308, which provided for the taking of a certain large district in Boston by eminent do- main and for an absolute bar to claims not presented within a very limited time. Many other States besides Massachusetts pro- vide for the establishment of facts in land titles by proceedings either against specified classes of unknown persons, as, for exam- ple, unknown heirs of a person deceased,^ or against all unknown claimants, of whatever description.^ Some of these States, like Massachusetts, provide only for limited classes of defects ; others for defects of every nature. Statutes to this end, when they pro- vide (as of course the English equity procedure did not do) for the operation of the decree upon the land, either directly, propria vigore, or by the intervention of an agent to execute releases in the name of unknown possible claimants, seem to be constitutional and effectual. Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U. S. 74. See also Cook V. Allen, 2 Mass. 461 ; Crippen v. Dexter, 13 Gray 330; Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 280; Eitel v. Foote, 39 Cal. 439; Jackson v, Babcock, 16 N. Y. 246; Sullivant v. Weaver, 10 Ohio 275; Parker v. Overmann, 18 How. 140; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Gray, J., Hart v. Sansom, no U. S. 151. We have, therefore, in our States, recognized principles of leg- islation, under which it is possible to establish conclusively a starting-point in a land title ; and all that is needed in this respect in any given State is the extension of existing legislation. It has been suggested by a high authority in real-estate law that possibly the State, just as it can take a whole section of a city by eminent domain, for the purpose of changing its grade, for the advancement of the public health, can take parcels of land for the purpose of clearing and registering their titles, selling the land with an indefeasible title, and holding the purchase-money for the real owners. Such a proceeding would ransack the title, like a bankruptcy or a tax sale, and make an indefeasible initial title in the new taker. 2. Subsequent transfers. The States have the fullest power over transfers of real estate, 1 N. Y., Civil Code, § 438; Wise, Rev. Sts., 1878, §§ 3185, 2539, 3195; Minn. Gen. Sts., vol. I. c. 75, §§ 2-8, 32 ; vol. II. c. 75, § 4. 2 Va., Code, §§ 3230, 3233; W. Va., Code, c. 124, §§ 11, 14; Col., Civil Code, §§ 45, 237.