Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/681

 530

THE GREEN BAG

their calendars when the long vacation arrives; a jury case put on the calendar is tried in three months or so. Our state courts, bound hand and foot by statute, like a man set to playtennis in a plaster cast, are years behind; about twenty-seven months between issue and trial. These are the things to remedy; enable the courts to transact more business, and cease the attacks upon them; these do no good whatever, and undeniably they do immense harm." PRACTICE. " The Organization of a Law Office," by R. V. Harris, Canadian Law Times and Review (V. xxviii, p. 705). PROCEDURE (Federal). " Some Misappre hensions as to Federal Procedure and Juris diction," by Henry C. McDowell, Virginia Laiv Register (V. xiv, p. 321). A paper of much practical value to lawyers in all states, although primarily intended for Virginia practitioners. REAL PROPERTY (Effect of Torrens Sys tem). " The Indcfeasibility of Registered Proprietorship," by Maurice A. Richmond, Commonwealth Law Review (V. v, p. 193). This article is an analysis of the Privy Council case of The Assets Company, Ltd.,v. Mere Rohi ([1905] A. C. 176), and two other cases decided by the same judgment, of importance to all interested in the Torrens System. These cases must be taken to have finally settled some exceedingly important questions as. to the effects of registration of title under the Torrens Acts in force in the Australasian colonies. The complication of facts in each case, the number of points raised, the special technicalities of New Zealand native land law involved, are carefully explained and the author's view of the effects of the decisions is summarized as follows : "i. In order to impeach a title registered under the Torrens Act on the ground of fraud, it is necessary to show actual fraud (i.e., dis honesty of some sort, as distinguished from constructive or equitable fraud) on the part of the person whose title is attached or of his agents ([1905] A. C. 210, 212), or actual fraud on the part of an earlier registered proprietor (or of his agents) from whom the title attacked has been derived by a voluntary transaction or transmission, or by a series of transactions or transmissions, none of which has been bona fide for value."

The latter part of this proposition is not derived from the decisions reviewed, but follows from' the express provisions of the acts and from plain principle. A bona fide purchaser for value of registered land must have the power of giving a good title either to a purchaser for value or to a volunteer even if the latter has knowledge of the prior fraud. "Otherwise the indefeasibility of his title would be largely unreal and its value largely destroyed." "2. The rule stated in the last paragraph applies (so far as it is in terms applicable) to the case of the first holder of a certificate of title under the act (at all events if he is himself a purchaser for value), as fully as it does to a registered purchaser for value from a prior registered proprietor ([1905] A. C. 202, 210). "3. The fraud which must be proved in order to invalidate the title of a registered purchaser for value, whether he bought from a prior registered proprietor or is himself the first holder of a certificate of title, must be brought home to the person whose registered title is impeached, or to his agents. Fraud by persons from whom he claims does not affect him unless knowledge of it is brought home to him or his agents. The mere fact that he might have found out fraud if he had been more vigilant and had made further inquiries which he omitted to make, does not of itself prove fraud on his part. But if it be shown that his suspicions were aroused, and that he abstained from making inquiries for fear of learning the truth, fraud may properly be ascribed to him ([1905] A. C. 210). And the effect is the same, of course, if there is similar conduct on the part of his agents. "4. Where a document is produced to the registrar, which is upon the face of it a good statutory authority for bringing land under the act and issuing a certificate of title (in lieu of Crown grant) to the person producing it, and the person producing it honestly believes it to be a genuine document which can be properly acted upon, and the registrar brings the land under the act and issues a certificate of title accordingly, the registered title so obtained cannot be impeached (even as against the first holder of the certificate) on the ground that the document produced as authority was in fact void for non-compliance