Page images
PDF
EPUB

title of the proprietors of any land, any person is deprived of any estate, right, or interest in the land, the proprietor, his heirs, executors, and administrators shall be liable to pay compensation for the same, in like manner as for an injury to the property of that person." And by section 16, sub-section 1, "Where a person satisfies the High Court that he has been deprived of any registered land by any forgery or fraud, or by any error of the Land Transfer Board or any of its officers, the court may either order compensation to that person out of the insurance fund, or order that the land shall be restored to him, and that the person losing the land shall receive compensation out of the insurance fund" to be established under the Bill. The result is that a person with a certificate of an absolute title may, if he is first registered owner, have to pay compensation to a former dispossessed proprietor (apparently without indemnity from the insurance fund); or, if he is a purchaser from a prior registered owner, he may have to fight for his title in court, and if beaten have to give up his land and take money compensation from the insurance fund. In fact, the Bill practically admits what was pointed out both in the statement on the land laws published by the council of this society, and in the paper on land transfer published by order of the Bar Committee, that it is possible that in dealings with property with a registered indefeasible title, some person might by fraud or by error get himself put on the register as a transferee, devisee, or heir of the first proprietor, and immediately sell and confer an indefeasible title on a purchaser. In this case, either the rightful owner from whose name the Ĩand had been wrongfully transferred in the register, or else the innocent purchaser must give up the land, and the indefeasible title will be defeated as to one or the other. The existing register has been so little used that so far as I know we have had no example of frauds or errors as yet, but the statement quoted by the Bar Committee in their paper, that the losses by the Bank of England through fraudulent transfers of stock for a period of ten years averaged £40,000 per annum, shew that the possibility of the creation by fraud of error of two absolute titles to the same land at the same time in two equally innocent holders cannot be ignored. Within my own experience in Ireland the Crown actually sold to a purchaser, and conveyed to him for a valuable consideration, land to which another person, a client of mine, had a prior indefeasible title under the Incumbered Estates Court.

The Bill, as I have just shewn, practically abandons the attempt to confer an absolute title, and it would be an improvement if, in this respect, the wording of it were made to correspond with the fact, and an alteration suggested by a committee of our council to the Lord Chancellor adopted, by which the principle of a guaranteed title should be substituted in name for an absolute title; and it were enacted that every person who gives the Land Transfer Board the information and evidence which they may prescribe as sufficient should have a guaranteed title, with a right to be indemnified out of the insurance fund in the event of anyone other than the guaranteed owner successfully maintaining his right to the property or to any interest in it. To effect this it would be necessary only to alter section 10, sub-section 5, and section 16, so as to provide that in case of a claim prior in title to a registered owner being established, the court should order the re-transfer of the land to the rightful owner, and order indemnity to the registered owner out of the insurance fund. If the promoters of the Bill think that section 10 must remain unaltered, and that a first registered proprietor and his representatives ought not to be protected against prior claims discovered after registration, they surely ought not to exact an insurance premium on first registration. If the guarantee principle, pure and simple, were adopted, registration of title would be conducted as the ordinary business of an insurance company, with, of course, the inevitable disadvantage to the public that as the board would have a monopoly there would be no competition to compel them to keep up to the mark, but the board would soon ascertain by experience what evidence was sufficient, and what premium of insurance should be charged. The rules prescribing the evidence to be furnished by applicants, and fixing the premium to be paid for insurance, could be altered from time to time to meet the result of the experience gained, and, under able management, the business of first registration of title might be conducted with the minimum of friction and expense, and the maximum of security.

But the instances I have quoted above of the requirements of the registrar under the Acts in cases of dealings with land subsequent to first registration, shew that the difficulties do not end when the title is on the register. The Bill contains no new provisions as to registration of transfers, but the regulations now in force as to this branch of the business will have to be altered as much as the requirements on first registration are proposed to be altered, or they will break down under the weight of business. It is impossible to predict with any certainty the amount of business likely to pass through any particular office, but assuming the London district to be conterminous with the metropolitan police district, which extends fifteen miles from Charing-cross, and which contais no part of any district registry of the High Court, the following facts may help us to a conclusion as to what will have to be done in it. The county of Middlesex is equal to about two-fifths in area of this district. The documents registered in Middlesex have been as many as 10,000 in a year. They are documents relating almost exclusively to freeholds, and leaseholds with more than twenty-one years to run, and so are the same class of documents as will have to be entered in the new register. If dealings with land in the same proportion take place in the City of London, and in the metropolitan parts of Surrey, Kent, and Essex, as in Middlesex, this would give 100,000 dealings per annum independent of first registrations. The entire number of registrations in the Land Registry in the twenty-five years of its career would not equal a month's work in the new office for the London district alone; and the rules which worked without difficulty when the documents to be registered were one or two in a week, will

cause a hopeless block when transfers have to be registered at the rate of hundreds a day. The Bill very wisely leaves a large part of the machinery to be established by rules, but this makes it of the utmost importance that the rules should be well considered by the persons who will have to work under them, and that ample time should be given for their consideration; and in this view the council have suggested to the Lord Chancellor that the committee by whom they are to be framed should include the members of the Land Registry Board, and also representatives of the bar and the law societies, and that a substantial interval of time should elapse in each case between the establishment of a land transfer district by Order in Council and the day to be specified in the order on and after which registration is to be compulsory. For if the machinery is not such as will work and give satisfaction, the ingenuity of mankind may safely be trusted to find some way of dealing with land outside the register, and the complications of title ensuing on such an attempt will be worse than ever.

Having thus far explained the facilities for obtaining an absolute title under the Bill as compared with the difficulties under the former Acts, and the difference in the position of a registered owner with an absolute title under the two systems, I wish to point out the inquiries that will still have to be made by a purchaser from an owner registered with an absolute title before he can be safe.

(1) In consequence of the Settled Land Act, and of the new mode of vesting trust estates in trustees under the Conveyancing Act, it will be necessary in many cases to notice trusts on the register; and unless the Legislature will enact that purchasers from trustees are not to be affected by this notice, a purchaser will have to look into the trusts and see that the sale is in accordance with the powers of the trustees; he will also have to ascertain that the conditions of sale under which he buys are such as a trustee may properly use (if they are not, the case of Dunn v. Flood (33 W. R. 315, 28 Ch. D. 586) shews that the purchaser will not have a good title against the cestuis que trust); and the purchaser must take the precaution of paying his purchase-money to all the trustees in person, or to a banking account in their joint names as prescribed in the case of Bellamy v. Board of Works (31 W. R. 900).

(2) The registry gives no protection against succession duty. Unless the Legislature will repeal so much of section 42 of the Succession Duty Act as makes the duty a charge on real property in the hands of all persons claiming under the successor, no purchaser can be safe against having to pay succession duty due from other persons on past successions, without examining the title since 1853, and seeing that on every devolution of the land by death all duties have been paid.

(3) Until a central register of judgments, rent charges, &c., is established, the purchaser will have to search at the Land Commissioners' Office and elsewhere for improvement rent charges, at the Central Office for judgments, at the Enrolment Office for annuities, at the Bankruptcy Office for bankruptcies, and so on; and to take his risk of rent charges under the Agricultural Holdings Act and others, of which no register exists. A Bill to establish one central registry for all these incumbrances is now being promoted by the council.

(4) To have boundaries guaranteed on the register will take five years, with notices in the meantime to adjoining owners and others; and any person applying to the Land Transfer Board, or to the court, to object to the proposed boundaries is to have his costs paid by the registered owner; and if by the registration of boundaries after the five years' inquiries any person is deprived of any right, the registered owner will have to compensate him out of his own funds, not out of the insurance fund. I do not suppose that many persons will apply to register their boundaries on these conditions, and where they do not the purchaser must make his own inquiries as to boundaries; he will also have to ascertain from some other source than the register whether there are any charges for land tax and tithe, whether either the public or adjoining owners have any easements over the land, and the terms of the tenancies when let.

(5) If the subject-matter of the purchase is leasehold, the purchaser must ascertain by inquiries and evidence that the rent has been paid and covenants performed.

These inquiries, of course, have to be made now. I only refer to them as shewing that the new scheme falls far short of enabling land to be dealt with, as Stock Exchange securities are, without inquiry and without expense beyond that of looking into a book kept by officials to see who the owner is. If the Land Transfer Act of 1875 is to affect all land in the future, there will no doubt be some points on which it will want amendment. The Lord Chancellor proposes, by the amendments introduced into the Bill, to repeal section 83, sub-section 2, which prohibits registration of the ownership of an undivided share, but he does not deal with the more important section 21, which repeals the Statute of Limitations so far as relates to registered land. This, I think, should be repealed, and some plan providing for registration of title of persons acquiring title by adverse possession should be adopted, and the entry on the Land Register of judgments in ejectment, or at least of execution of writs of habere possessionem, of decrees of foreclosure, of vesting orders and other orders transferring the ownership of land, should be made compulsory. There are several other alterations in points of detail which require consideration in the Bill and in the Act of 1875, which have been suggested to the Lord Chancellor in a report submitted to him by the council, but it is impossible to go into details in this paper. I fear I have done so too much already, but if it is now decided by the Legislature to adopt a scheme of compulsory registration, I am sure it is as much our interest as it is that of the public and our clients to endeavour to get the scheme made as successful and as workable as it can be. The observations in this paper which point out defects in the new scheme are intended only to call attention to them, so that if they are defects they may be

cured in time, and the suggestions for alterations in the scheme are made solely with the object of promoting the objects of the Bill-viz., to simplify titles and facilitate the transfer of land. As to that part of the Bill which deals with reforms of real property law, it is certainly startling to see the proposals made by a Lord Chancellor in a Conservative Ministry, and approved by the House of Lords with scarcely a dissentient voice; but for myself I hope to see them extended. Clauses 6, 30, 31, and 32 vest real estate on death of its owner in his personal representative, and provide that on intestacy it shall descend as personalty, except that it gives a surviving husband or wife, in case of intestacy, a life interest in the whole, instead of giving a husband the whole and a wife one-third or one-half, as the case may be, as is now the rule in personalty. This is an important step in the direction of assimilating the law of real and personal estate; but it seems to me to be a mistake to create a fresh distinction between them by giving a surviving husband and wife different interests in the two classes of property, as, unless the beneficial interest in the two classes of property devolves in the same way in all cases, the questions now arising in administrations as to the order in which the two classes of property are to be applied in payment of debts will continue to arise. Clauses 33 and 34 prohibit the creation of estates tail in future, and enact that the estate of any tenant in tail capable of barring his estate without the consent of any other person shall be barred by the statute without the necessity of a deed. This appears to me a half-hearted reform. The only justification for interfering with estates tail is that, in the opinion of the Legislature, they are against public policy. If they are so, the sooner they are put an end to without injustice to individuals the better. The protector of a settlement has no interest which can be affected by a statutory disentailment without his consent. No subsequent tenant in tail can have formed any expectations on which he can justifiably rely on the promise of a protector to refuse his consent to a disentailing by a prior tenant in tail, and if entails are to be put an end to the clauses should be amended so as to enact that the estate tail of every tenant in tail who, on the passing of the Act, is, or subsequently becomes, of full age, and is of sound mind, shall be enlarged into an estate in fee simple without prejudice to any prior estates, or the powers attached to them. This alteration would put an end to nearly all entails in twentyone years; the clauses in the Bill will not put an end to them for another generation. Clause 35 enables capital money to be applied in redeeming rent charges created to raise money for effecting any improvements authorized by the Settled Land Act. The council had previously promoted a Bill for this object. Clause 20 enacts that a mortgage to secure further advances up to an amount named shall have priority for the full amount named over advances by other lenders, thus repealing the law as laid down in the case of Rolt v. Hopkinson. The doctrines of tacking and consolidation of mortgages, evolved by the court out of the apparently innocent maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity, have proved very inconvenient, and frequently, have worked great injustice to innocent persons; and now that it is proposed to amend the law relating to mortgages given to secure further advances, I hope to see these two doctrines also repealed, for I think this would greatly facilitate mortgage transactions, as each separate mortgage would then be, as it ought to be, a separate transaction. To this part of the Bill the council have suggested that clauses should be added to repeal the Statute of Quia Emptores, so as to enable grants in fee to be made reserving rents, as a substitute for building leases, against which there is such a strong feeling at present. I think that the repeal should extend to the statutes of Elizabeth against fraudulent conveyances, so as to put voluntary gifts of real estate in the same position as personal estate, liable only to be set aside in the event of bankruptcy. We are promised a consolidation of the law of real property when the present Bill has passed. Before such a consolidation is attempted time and money will be well spent in issuing another Royal Commission, similar to that of 1828, to thoroughly investigate the laws of real property, and to recommend such alterations as may be required to put them on a footing suitable to the present time in exchange for the feudal basis on which they have rested since the Norman conquest. If such a commission is issued, and the commissioners follow the precedent of 1828 and apply to members of the legal profession practically acquainted with the law of real property for information and assistance, it is abundantly clear from the published statement of this council on the land laws, and from the paper entitled "Land Transfer" published by the Bar Committee, to which two documents I am indebted for many of the materials for this paper, that no antiquated prejudices on the part of the practitioners educated under the old system will prevent their rendering every assistance in their power to establish a new one. Whether the constructive skill of the present generation is sufficient to create a new system capable of enduring for another period of 800 years we must leave for our remote descendants to decide.

P.S.-This paper was in print before the proposed amendments to the Bill were published. The Bill now contains clauses to provide for registration of succession duty as an incumbrance; but it appears to me doubtful whether the difficulty suggested in the paper can be effectually cured except by altering section 42 of the Succession Duty Act. The references throughout the paper are to the clauses as numbered in the first draft of the Bill.

Mr. C. FORD (London) said that at the last general meeting he had placed a notice on the paper, suggesting that the time had come when these iniserable applications to the court in regard to removing the names of solicitors from the roll should be put an end to. It was most injurious to the profession that they should be reported throughout the length and breadth of the land by the newspapers. He could not see why they should not, in the first instance, be dealt with by the council, with an appeal to a judge in chambers. He would suggest, for the consideration of the council, that it was a great

grievance that unqualified persons should be permitted to practice in the Probate Court. They knew the unfortunate result of the recent costly litigation the society had entered into with regard to the law stationers. He asked that the society should consider it, so that a clause might be inserted on the occasion of any legislation, to provide that none but qualified practitioners should be allowed to practise in any court. They must recollect, with regard to consolidation, that there were thirty-five country law societies, and they must not expect that every country solicitor could be expected to join this society. There should be a system of affiliating the country law societies to the London society.

Mr. MUNTON (London) thought the papers which had been read were very excellent ones. Of course the papers read by the president and vice-president would naturally command attention, not only within but also without the society, and it was highly important that it should go forth that their views on the important topics on which they had touched carried the support of the society. As regarded the registration of titles of land, which had been suggested by the vice-president, there was no sort of doubt that every member of the profession agreed that in the abstract some such thing was desirable. But the main question was: Is it possible to have such a scheme as would be workable? And when they had evidence that such a scheme was practicable, the public might well consider the views expressed by them. It had been said that solicitors were interested in preventing reforms of this character, but he believed the time had come when the intelligent public had come to the conclusion that solicitors of all others were most anxious that reforms of this kind should take place. He thought it was also admitted that this society was extremely anxious to do all it could to facilitate measures of this kind. With regard to the amalgamation of the profession, those who had dined at the Law Courts on Saturday evening would, he thought, endorse the views of the Attorney-General when he said that he hoped the time would never come that the two branches of the profession should be amalgamated, and he (Mr. Munton) agreed that he had made a very good suggestion when he had said that the greatest facilities should be given for the transfer from one branch to the other, and there ought to be precisely the same facilities for going from the solicitor's branch to the bar as there were for going from the bar to the solicitor branch of the profession. Unfortun ately at present there was an arrangement of the benchers which prevented solicitors from going to the bar until they had been silent for one whole year after they had ceased to be solicitors. He trusted the council would be able to induce those in authority to pass a resolution to carry out the AttorneyGeneral's view so that the most perfect facility should be given for gcing from one branch of the profession to the other. The solicitor should be at liberty to be struck off the rolls at his own request, and to at once pass the examination of the bar so as to be placed exactly in the same position as the barrister coming to the solicitor branch. With regard to the disciplinary powers of the council, the meeting generally would desire to give the council full power as to discipline. He hoped the time would come when every member of the profession should be a member of the society, and that his respectability and position in the society should be to some extent known by the fact that he was a member of the Incorporated Law Society; and if all solicitors were bound to become members, the council, as the executive body, should have power to deal with many very important questions which were arising every day between solicitors but which could not be subject to court dealings, and which they would be extremely glad if the council could settle. The meeting could not have been commenced with three better papers than those they had heard read.

Mr. PENNINGTON (London) said the Land Bill was now before Parliament, and the council were in communication with the Lord Chancellor-in fact, some of them would see his lordship to-day. It seemed to him (Mr. Pennington) very unfortunate if they were to miss the opportunity which the occasion gave them of ascertaining from the country members of the society their views upon the matter. He would suggest that gentlemen in London should be so good-at any rate, while this subject was under discussion-as to give way to their country friends. They would be able to obtain from them probably an opinion of the greatest possible value which they would not have any other opportunity of getting. The only other matter which occurred to him was one which he would not have mentioned but that he was treasurer of the society, and, therefore, interested in the question alluded to by the vice-president, and, to some extent, by the president-that was the increase in the number of members of the society, Of course, it was a very important matter. It was a matter of finance, and the fact was that the number of articled clerks had begun now to decrease. That was a matter, very likely, for congratulation; but, of course, from the financial point of view it had another aspect. He looked at it from the financial aspect, as the council were frequently told that they received a very large sum as a revenue from articled clerks. If their revenue from that source decreased, it was certain they must get a revenue from some other source. Therefore he would anxiously impress upon all the members the point that they should, to the utmost of their power, until some legislation was arrived at which would enable them to act upon the lines suggested by the president-that all members should be kind enough to do whatever they could to increase their numbers.

Mr. MELVILL GREEN (Worthing) suggested that the Land Transfer Bill should be discussed first of all, and the other subjects be taken by themselves.

The PRESIDENT thought the suggestion a good one, and invited the country members to express their views with regard to the Land Transfer Bill.

Mr. BERNARD WAKE (Sheffield) said that at the meeting at York last year a paper had been read by Mr. Barker, of Huddersfield, upon registration. It had called forth expressions of approval from all present, but especially from Yorkshiremen. They had got now in Yorkshire an amended registration which worked to the very greatest benefit. With the greatest facility he could enter a caveat, if he was going to deal with particular property; when

he had dealt with the property he could require a memorial, and by the post he could send that document to Wakefield. The whole registration was then effected with the least trouble possible. He did not mean to say that registration of deeds would supersede the Lord Chancellor's Bill, but there seemed to be a tendency on both sides, Radical or Liberal, to go into some title registration. He wanted to impress it upon them that deed registration was very good in Yorkshire, and might be adopted throughout the kingdom as a prelude if they liked to title registration.

Mr. MILLER (Bristol) said that what appeared to him to be a desirable feature, and one which ought to be an object of the council in addressing the Lord Chancellor, was the amalgamation of the Land Transfer Act of 1875 with the proposed Land Transfer Bill of the present session. The Act of 1875 had 100 sections, and innumerable sub-sections, and a set of rules. The proposed Land Transfer Bill would have unknown numbers of statutory rules, and there would practically be four documents to refer to in working it. This would make it very vexatious and troublesome, and would lead to delay and to an enormous amount of litigation, and to very bad results indeed.

The PRESIDENT said that the following passage occurred in the council's report, which had been sent to the Lord Chancellor :-"The Bill, however, is only supplemental to the Land Transfer Act, 1875, and it is absolutely necessary that before the system can be properly worked there should be a consolidation of the two statutes, so as to remove the unavoidable confusion inherent in an attempt to graft a system of compulsory registration upon one which was merely optional."

Mr. JOHN LEWIS (Wrexham) suggested that the report should be read. The PRESIDENT: I am afraid there is an objection to that. The council have received the views of all the country law societies upon the entire Bill, and in framing the report they had had regard to all the important suggestions received. After we have seen the Lord Chancellor upon the report, probably we shall be able to read it to the meeting.

Mr. FORD asked if a copy of the report had been sent to the country law societies?

The PRESIDENT; No; to the Lord Chancellor only.

Mr. LAKE (London) moved that, having regard to what the President had said, the discussion of the Land Transfer Bill be postponed until the following morning.

Sir THOS. PAINE (London) seconded the motion. He said they would be able to communicate the report to the meeting on the following day, and then it could be more advantageously discussed. The motion was agreed to..

A HISTORY OF SOLICITORS AND ATTORNEYS.

Mr. F. E. SAWYER, F.S.A. (Brighton), read an excellent paper on this subject, suggesting the collection and publication of all records relating to the profession, and sketching the heads of research and discussion. hope hereafter to print this paper in full.

After the adjournment for lunch,

We

SOME COMFORTING COMMENTS ON LEWIN v. WILSON (11 App. Cas. 639). Mr. BERNARD WAKE (Sheffield) read a paper on this subject in which, assuming for the time the position of judge, he humorously and carefully summed up to the audience as jurymen, the cases of Chinnery v. Evans (11 H. L. 115), Adnam v. The Earl of Sandwich (2 Q. B. D. 485), Harlock v. Ashberry (19 Ch. D. 539), Newbould v. Smith (33 Ch. D. 127), and Lewin v. Wilson (11 App. Cas. 639), and concluded by submitting the following propositions:

1. That so long as Harlock v. Ashberry and Newbould v. Smith remain unreversed (I fear that Privy Council decisions on colonial cases do not override those of our appeal courts) no mortgagee is safe who does not call in his mortgages every twelve years.

2. That legislation is needed to reverse the decision in Harlock v. Ashberry and in Newbould v. Smith, unless the latter be, as I hope it will, reversed by the House of Lords.

3. That the finding of facts by judges without the intervention of juries, and the consequent summing up process is dangerous [e.g., I urge that any jury would find that Newbould was the agent of Smith to pay Alderson interest.]

4. That the law is now in confusion, because one court has decided that it is not the duty of a solicitor to receive money" [Viney v. Chaplin (2 De G. & J. 468) and Bellamy v. Metropolitan Board of Works (24 Ch. D. 387)] and another court has decided that when a solicitor does repeatedly receive and pay money, he does it as solicitor, and not as agent [Newbould v. Smith]. 5. That it is advisable, in the very frequent case of solicitors acting for both mortgagor and mortgagee, and paying interest for the mortgagor, and receiving it for the mortgagee, to create a clear agency by each party giving notice to the other that the common solicitor is also the

common agent.

THE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY AND LEGAL EDUCATION. Mr. CHARLES FORD (London) read a paper on this subject, in which, after referring to the obligation of the society in regard to legal education, and stating that, "out of £11,000, which must be applied to education purposes alone, we pay only £300 a year for what is called legal education, in the provinces; and only a small percentage of articled clerks at such places attend these lectures," and "that the society's examinations, as testing the extent of legal studies by articled clerks, are not satisfactory, and I have always contended that the office of examiners of our society (who are now, as I think, overpaid) should be thrown open to public competition, as in the case of the universities and other seats of learning;" and that, "in

point of numbers alone," the lectures and classes provided by the society in London “are a complete failure,” he concluded by asking leave to move as follows: 1. That in the opinion of this meeting it is desirable to take steps to provide a fund with which to create a scholarship to be called the Victoria Scholarship, with a view to the better encouragement of legal study by articled clerks, and also as a lasting memorial of the Jubilee Year of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

2. That the following be constituted a Committee (with power to add to their number) to act with the council of this society in carrying the foregoing resolution into effect: The presidents and secretaries, for the time being, of the several provincial law societies; and

3. That a sum of 500 guineas be at once contributed as a first donation by his society towards "The Victoria Scholarship Fund." The PRESIDENT: I am afraid we cannot allow your resolution, except in the form of a recommendation to the council.

Mr. G. R. DODD (London) seconded the motion. He said he was very much in favour of increasing legal education. The society could well afford to do what was asked, and were in a good position to vote a certain sum for the purpose. The society had received large sums from articled clerks, and had not expended the necessary funds in encouraging them in the way of education. He was not quite prepared to follow Mr. Ford in all his resolutions, or anything like them, but he would second the motion as to scholarships. Mr. H. BRAMLEY (Sheffield) said the difficulty in the case of scholarships was to maintain the interest of the articled clerks in the scheme. They began very ardently, but soon dropped off, and at the end of the third year the interest had entirely subsided. It was difficult for an articled clerk to devote the necessary time to preparing for these scholarships and to read up for examinations and carry on his office work. The tendency also was for one man to carry off all the honours. The old system which had prevailed when he was an articled clerk-namely, that each man had to make himself master as far as he could of his own profession-was the very best of systems. Mr. HOWLETT (Brighton) expressed himself in favour of articled clerks learning their profession practically, and not becoming mere bookworms. The clerk who was absorbed in seeking after scholarships and prizes was too often in the Library when he ought to be at the office. Therefore he thought too high a scale of education was to be deprecated.

Mr. M'LELLAN (Rochester) gave it as his opinion that if prizes of too great value were offered it would have the effect of taking up the time of those who were anxious to secure them, and they would devote it to study simply for honour, instead of devoting it to their practical work. He did not see how they could be compelled to devote a certain part to practice and part to study, especially if the value of the prizes was very great.

Mr. J. J. COULTON (Lynn) said that, as far as his experience went, the most studious clerks were the best practical men.

Mr. GREEN (Worthing) said it was not the men at the top who should be looked after principally. What they ought to do was to raise the men who were at the bottom. It was not at all sensible to take men away from practical work; and he doubted very much whether the benefit of law lectures was not greatly exaggerated.

Mr. S. DAY (London) proposed as an amendment: "That this meeting has of students, and desires at this time to leave them wholly unfettered in the confidence in the council of this society in promoting the education every matter."

Mr. FORD said that was not an amendment.
The PRESIDENT: I rule that it is.

one,

Mr. J. A. ROSE (London) said that if Mr. Ford's proposal was a practical he must say, from many years' experience of that gentleman, that it was the first practical resolution he had ever brought forward. He (Mr. Rose) had the most absolute confidence in the council. He did not believe in the value of lectures, but insisted on the necessity of an articled clerk receiving a good sound practical education.

Mr. V.I. CHAMBERLAIN (London), speaking as one of the society's examiners, said he had been struck by the good sense shown by articled clerks in their answers to the questions. The solicitors of the prosent day had pitchforked at their heads Acts of Parliament and new rules in a manner which was perfectly appalling, and how were these to be understood unless by a proper system of lectures and examinations?

The amendment was carried.

The PRESIDENT was proceeding to put the amendment as a substantive resolution, but Mr. FORD asked permission to withdraw his motion. Mr. DAY also withdrew the amendment.

Mr. GREEN said the president had said in his paper that every solicitor ought to become a member of the society. He (Mr. Green) would like to suggest some way by which this could be effected. If solicitors were asked would suggest that there should be some such arrangement as existed in the to join the society, they sometimes answered, "What shall I get by it?" He medical profession. He would have every solicitor compulsorily a licentiate of the society without its being incumbent upon him to pay any subscription. Three years afterwards he should be at liberty to become a member if he pleased, and ten years after membership he should be entitled to be made a fellow. Membership would carry with it the present privileges, and a subscription would be paid as was the case now. The tendency would be that the licentiates would not like to be in the third class and they would become members, and the society would thus keep touch of the whole of the profession. The society would then be able to improve the discipline of the profes sion, and any action would come with much greater weight from the council, as representing the whole profession, instead of a section merely.

Mr. OSBORN (Shifnal) thought the provincial solicitors would derive great advantage if they could be furnished with an outline of the work done by the society. Digests of the report appeared in the legal papers; but this was not sufficient, for they did not give to the country solicitors the least.

idea of the work done. A solicitor, as soon as he had passed his examination' at once lost touch of the society.

Mr. GREEN moved "That the council be requested to consider whether the whole profession can be brought into union with the Incorporated Law Society by the institution of licentiates, members, and fellows, as was done by some other bodies, every solicitor being ipso facto a licentiate."

Mr. LOWNDES (Liverpool) remarked that it would be necessary to have a new Act of Parliament and a new charter. Mr. MILLER (Bristol) thought the suggestion a step in the right direction. If they needed an Act of Parliament and a new charter, let them get it. Mr. MUNTON (London) liked the proposition. He asked whether some member of the council would say whether it was a favourable suggestion. Mr. G. R. DODD (London) observed that at the College of Surgeons there were free examinations for membership and fellowship. Mr. B. G. LAKE (London) hoped the resolution would be carried. It only asked the council to consider a question which they were always considering more or less, with the intention of doing all they could to extend the number of members. The resolution would come with great weight from the meeting. Mr.BRAMLEY (Sheffield) said they had been discussing what was to be done with defaulting solicitors, and the carrying of the resolution would be very advantageous in that respect. If every solicitor on admission became one of the society, and if they could get an Act passed for exclusion by the council of a member, practically meaning striking him off the rolls, they would then in the case of defaulting solictors, get a satisfactory method of dealing with them. Mr. DIBDIN (London) suggested that the certificate duty should be abolished, or a part devoted to the payment of the subscription to the society. Mr. A. E. SHAPLAND (South Molton) did not think anything of letters being placed after their names, and was not in favour of placing a mark against solicitors who had been struck off the rolls. They were struck off and there was an end of them.

Mr. RUBENSTEIN (London) said he had read a paper at the provincial meeting three years ago, and his first suggestion had been to place letters after the names of members of the society. Mr. W. M. WALTERS (London) did not think solicitors would value very much the privilege of putting letters after one's name. They were at liberty now to put S.S.C. and M.I.L.S. after their names if they chose. He did not quite see the object of making licentiates, unless it was followed up by an Act of Parliament giving the council that control over solicitors which was now vested in the judges. He would be a strong advocate for that. The motion was carried unanimously.

Mr. FRANCIS D. LOWNDES (Liverpool) read a paper entitled

OUGHT A SUCCESSFUL LITIGANT TO BE RECOUPED BY HIS OPPONENT ALL HIS REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL EXPENDITURE IN OBTAINING OR DEFEndING HIS RIGHTS?

After sketching the origin and history of the present system, he said: The scale of charges to be allowed to solicitors in respect of litigious business was contained in certain rules which were issued under section 17 of the Judicature Act, 1875, and for these the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, are now substituted. These rules contain two scales of costs, called the higher and lower scale; but it is to be observed that the higher scale is only to apply to those cases in which, on special grounds arising out of the nature and importance or the difficulty or urgency of the case, the court may direct the higher scale to apply. Before considering how far these scales of costs are adequate for the remuneration of solicitors, I desire to point out that there are three modes of proceeding in the taxation of bills of costs. The first mode is strictly and simply as between party and party; the second is between party and party, but when the costs are taxed as between solicitor and client-that is to say, when the opposite party has to pay the amount allowed to the successful party; and thirdly, between solicitor and client when the client has to pay his solicitor. With regard to the third case I do not propose to say anything, as it rests upon quite different ground from the other two. But, with regard to the other two, it appears to me to be a matter of grave consideration whether it is not desirable that the distinction which now exists between them should be abolished, and all bills of costs between party and party be taxed upon the same basis as solicitor and client bills of the first mode of costs. Now in what respects does a party and party and solicitor and client taxation differ? The principle upon which costs are to be taxed as between party and party is laid down in Morgan and Davey's work on Costs, as follows: "No costs are to be allowed which do not appear to the taxing officer to have been necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or defending the rights of the party, or which appear to the taxing officer to have been incurred through over-caution, negligence, or mistake, or merely at the desire of the party." And when the costs are to be taxed upon the second mode to which I referred, viz., when the costs are taxed as between party and party, but the costs are taxed as between solicitor and client, the general principle seems to be that the successful party shall be entirely free from what are usually called extra costs. In practice the difference between these modes is chiefly felt in three particulars: first, in the disallowance in the former case of the solicitor's charges for attendances upon, and correspondence with the client, for instructions to prepare statement of claim or defence; for the solicitor's attendance at the trial, and hearing of an appeal; and for the expenses of witnesses. With reference to the first, certain stereotyped charges are allowed for instructions to sue or defend for statement of claim or defence; and it is in respect of these that the clients largely suffer, as the scale charges are very inadequate to remunerate a solicitor. A great improvement has been made in allowing a discretion to the taxing officer in dealing with the item of instructions for brief. When an action has reached the stage when if settled the costs of instructions for brief can be included, the hardship referred to is in part remedied, yet

in all cases settled before that stage the client has a large bill of extra costs to pay his solicitor, for work necessarily incurred, which the stereotyped charges do not cover. Now the remedy I would propose is that the taxing officers should have a similar discretion, in regard to the allowance for instructions to sue or defend, as well as for statement of claim or defence. If the action proceeds to the stage of instructions for brief, the taxing officer would of course take into consideration the previous allowances in determining the amount he would allow under that head. The second point which calls for remedy is one which affects provincial suitors mainly, viz., the disallowance for the attendance in London of the country solicitor at the hearing either of the action, if it takes place there, or on a motion for a new trial or an appeal. The client looks to his solicitor to be present on all these occasions, and his presence is absolutely necessary at the trial with the witnesses. It is impossible for the London agent to take the place of the country solicitor on this occasion, and in most cases where there is a motion for a new trial or an appeal, the attendance of the country solicitor is of the utmost importance to the client. If the position is reversed, and the defendant resides in London, and the trial takes place in the country, the defendant's solicitor, if successful, is allowed for his attendance in the country. There is surely no good reason why the London suitor should be placed on a different footing from the country suitor in this respect. The third item which occasions much loss to successful suitors is the inadequacy of the scale allowance to witnesses, more especially in regard to the allowance to professional witnesses. I consider it quite unnecessary to enlarge upon this point. The experience of everyone present must be sufficient to convince him of the hardship which the present system inflicts upon a successful suitor. I cannot discover any good reason for the distinction of the two modes of taxation being retained. Is a successful suitor entitled to be indemnified by his opponent or not? I remember Dr. Lushington once saying that the maxim was good in law as well as in war, va victis. The change would, no doubt, cause additional trouble and responsibility upon the taxing officers. Upon this point I should like to quote some remarks made by three eminent judges, which seem pertinent to the whole question of this paper. The first is the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, delivered by Lord Campbell in Howes v. Barber:-"The reasonable expenses to which the plaintiff is put by being obliged to attend and be examined as a witness to enforce payment of a just demand, or to seek redress for an injury, should be thrown on the wrongdoer. Again, if an unfounded action is brought, and the evidence of the person improperly sued is necessary for his defence, he is not indemnified if his own expenses are not allowed to him. At the same time the mere fact of the parties being examined is not by any means to be consided sufficient to establish a claim for their expenses as witnesses; and if it appears that their attendance was unnecessary, or that its real object was to superintend the conduct of the cause, the claim ought to be rejected. The courts in such cases trust to the intelligence and vigilance of the taxing officers to detect and to frustrate attempts that may be made to swell costs unnecessarily, under the pretext that the parties were material and necessary witnesses." The other quotation is from a judgment of the Court of Appeal in a recent case of Warner v. Mosses, reported 19 Ch. D. 72. The ques tion there was whether copies of the pleadings which had been made for the court and used on an interlocutory appeal should be allowed on taxation of the costs of the appeal. The late Master of the Rolls, in his judgment, made the following remarks: "Now, in this case it is clear that the copies were necessary. The case could not have been argued by counsel without a copy of the pleadings, nor could it have been decided by the judges without their having copies. It being therefore absolutely necessary for the attainment of justice that the copies should be supplied, why should they not be allowed on taxation? The only suggestion made is that it would be inconvenient for the taxing masters to have to consider in such cases whether the copies were wanted or not. I do not agree as to the inconvenience. Neither a taxing master nor a judge can complain that he has to decide on what is necessary or proper for the attainment of justice. So far from the taxing masters having a right to complain of being called upon to decide such a question, the 26th rule imposes on them in every case the obligation of doing so and I should be sorry were it otherwise. I am quite sure that those gentlemen would never think of complaining of being trusted with that discretion, or of having the trouble of exercising it." And the present Master of the Rolls, in following him, said: The masters exist for the purpose of being troubled with the duties of their office, just as judges exist for the like purpose. They must take the trouble." In conclusion I would urge that the council be requested to bring this subject under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, with an urgent request that the subject may be considered by a tribunal similar to that which settled the conveyancing scales.

Mr. J. A. ROSE (London) expressed his strongest objection to the suitor against whom a decision had been given having the heavy costs of patent agents, highly feed counsel, and so on, heaped upon him. On the contrary, he would let him off as easily as possible.

[blocks in formation]

except copyhold (I would except copyhold, as each steward of a manor keeps a register of the deeds affecting the land within the manor), but such lands would, of course, come on the register as and when they were enfranchised; and this registration should be compulsory as to all deeds made or executed after the passing or commencement of the Act, but should be optional as to deeds made or executed before the passing or commencement of the Act. The mode of registration should be as follows:-The following particulars should be entered on parchment, to be of a particular size, and ruled in a scribed manner, and which should be called the index of title. The heading should comprise :-(1) A short description of the lands conveyed; and such description should refer to such lands for the better identification thereof either to a plan drawn thereon, or annexed thereto, or deposited in the registry, and in the body should be entered,

(2) The date of the conveyance,

pre

(3) The full christian and surnames of the parties thereto, and their addresses and description, business, or occupation,

(4) The nature or description of such conveyance, and the lands conveyed, or a short description thereof, and the effect of the conveyance, (5) The name or names of the grantee or grantees, his or their addresses and descriptions,

And in case of a will or letter of administration,

(6) The date of probate or letters of administration,

(7) The name of the testator or intestate, his address and description, or occupation,

(8) The description of the document, whether will or codicil, or letters of administration, (9) The name, address, and description of the devisee, legatee, or administrator. The index of title and conveyance to be registered should forthwith be produced to the registrar, who should, if the particulars of such conveyance have been correctly entered upon the index of title, cause the same particulars to be entered in a book to be kept for that purpose, to be called the official register, and the registrar should assign a reference thereto; such reference should include (1) the name of the owner, (2) the name of the county in which the property is situate, (3) the year of the registration, (4) the folio of the official register, thus: Smith, Geo., Middlesex, 1886, fol. 100; and such reference should be stamped upon the index of title, and the seal of the registry office should be affixed or impressed opposite the entry of the particulars of each conveyance entered; every subsequent conveyance relating to the same land should be registered, by entering such short particulars as aforesaid on the same index of title immediately following the last entry, and subsequently produced to the registrar for registration, who should cause the corre sponding particulars to be entered on the official register under the same folio and reference, immediately following the last entry; and when so entered, the entry on the index of title should be stamped with the seal of the office, and the date when the same was registered indorsed on the conveyance. No conveyance dated after the time appointed for the commencement of the Act should be registered, unless the same had been duly stamped. An owner of land desirous of registering the conveyances relating thereto dated before the time appointed for the commencement of the Act, should be at liberty to do so, but such deeds and the evidence of the devolution of the title should be entered on the index of title in chronological order, and in the manner prescribed, and the index of title should be produced to the registrar with the deeds, who, if the particulars of such conveyances, &c., have been correctly entered on the index of title, should cause the same particulars to be entered on the official register and assign a reference thereto, which reference should be stamped on the index of title, and the seal of the registry office affixed or impressed opposite the entry of the particulars of each conveyance, &c., and the date of registration indorsed on each conveyance; and every subsequent conveyance relating to the same land, executed after the commencement of the Act, should be registered in the manner prescribed on the same index of title and official register, and immediately following the last entry. If the conveyance to be registered relates to several lands comprised in several previous conveyances, registered in the prescribed manner and under several 'references, such conveyance should be registered by entering the particulars thereof in the prescribed manner on the several indexes of title and on the several official registers. The index of title should always accompany the deeds, and the person for the time being entitled to the deeds should be entitled to the index of title, and, therefore, any deposit of deeds by way of equitable security should | include the index of title, and any deposit not so accompanied should be adjudged fraudulent against any subsequent conveyances of the same lands for valuable consideration registered in the prescribed manner; and on the sale of any land, if the title prescribed by law or stipulated by contract commences with a conveyance registered in the prescribed manner, the purchaser should not at the expense of the vendor be entitled to an abstract of title, but he should in lieu thereof be furnished at the expense of the vendor with a copy of the index of title, and the purchaser should be entitled to compare the same with the official register, and to the production and examination of the conveyances therein referred to; and the purchaser should be entitled, at the expense of the vendor, to an abstract or copy of such conveyances only as contain limitations and remainders over trusts or powers special or respective. Mr. Saunders elaborately developed the details of this scheme with regard to leaseholds, partition, and other matters, and said that, if the scheme foreshadowed by this paper were adopted, all the transactions relating to any particular land could be ascertained without any difficulty by a perusal of the official register under the particular reference assigned to the particular land. After discussing the arguments against registration of assurances, he said: We will now pause for one minute and consider what would be the

effect of a register thus preserving and keeping up the evidence of title. The vendor would, in lieu of an expensive abstract, deliver to the purchaser a copy of the index of title, which would disclose all the assurances and dealings with the land, and the purchaser could only demand a copy or abstract of such deeds as did not speak for themselves; and as the register became established so would the title of the person claiming under the deeds become indefeasible, and the necessity for making searches or inquiries as to deeds and obtaining certificates and declarations to verify the title to the lands would cease, and each step or devolution in the title having been proved at the time, the title would of necessity be easier of proof, and land would become more marketable and less costly to transfer. And with regard to the practicability of such a register it was contemplated by the Land Transfer Act to investigate all the titles in the kingdom. If that were practicable it must be practicable to register all deeds relating to the titles without investigation of the title, and this would be a much easier task if local registries were established.

Mr. B. G. LAKE (London) referred to the report of the council with reference to the Land Transfer Bill which had been submitted to the Lord Chancellor, and said that, if in his observations he deviated from the report, what he said must be taken as a personal statement and not as representing the opinions of the council. He would call attention to two or three points to which he thought attention might profitably be directed. They had a large attendance of members from the country, and the council desired to receive suggestions and advice with regard to the lines they should take to endeavour to frame the Bill so that it should be a workable measure. He would point out what appeared to him to be the leading features of the Bill. It was based upon the Act of 1875, which was a voluntary Act, but the present Bill was to be compulsory; and it appeared to him that that was the most dangerous point about it. He would not for a moment suggest that compulsion might not possibly be ultimately desirable; still less was he suggesting that compulsion was not for the interest of solicitors, for, from a purely selfish point of view, it might be entitled an Act for making the fortunes of the present race of solicitors at the expense of those which were to follow. But he deprecated compulsion very strongly, because it ought not to be introduced until the scheme had been worked out and shewn to be practicable. If, as the Bill proposed, registration was to be compulsory, not only on owners who desired to deal with their property, but also on owners who did not, if that was to be the law of the land, it was most essential that there should be, at all events, a number of years allowed to them to see that the scheme which was to be made compulsory was workable and well understood. He could scarcely conceive a greater catastrophe than that solicitors should have a sudden rush to throw the net of compulsory registration over all England at the same moment. He thought that if a strong opinion were expressed that compulsion was an evil until the system had been proved workable it would have its effect upon the Lord Chancellor and the House of Commons. The second point of importance was the establishment of an insurance fund. The scheme was that it should be established by those who were compelled to come in to register. That appeared a very great injustice. If they made the system of registration optional, it was perfectly fair, if an insurance fund was wanted, to say that those coming in should find the fund, but if they made it compulsory, in the public interest the expense ought to fall, not on the individual landowners, but on the public. Moreover, it resulted in this, that those who registered and had good titles would have to establish a fund for the bene fit of those whose titles were not so sound. The next point of very great importance was the constitution of the Land Transfer Board, which would, subject to certain rights of appeal, have the whole control of the conveyancing business of the country. The Bill provided for no single qualification whatever for any member of the board, and it was conceivable that they might get three gentlemen appointed not one of whom had ever seen a conveyance. That was a possible state of things, and ought not to be possible. Under the Act of 1875 it was not possible. On that point the council had laid great stress in their observations to the Lord Chancellor, and it was essential that the board should be confined entirely to those who had a practical knowledge of conveyancing and land business, and should be presided over by a president of equal rank with a judge of one of her Majesty's courts. It ought to be someone whose authority on matters of law would at once be conceded, otherwise there would be a multiplicity of appeals. This had been carried out in the case of the Probate Act with the best results. There was an entirely new system introduced into the Bill called Confirmation of Title. That was that a land proprietor who had put himself on the register with a possessory title might, by a series of advertisements over five years, become entitled, at the end of that five years, to have the entry of his title confirmed as an absolute title. He was entirely at a loss to understand what possible object such a scheme as that could have. He could see that a great many openings might be made for fraud and error. Then there was the question of the power of making rules. By the Act of 1875 that power was vested in the Lord Chancellor with the advice and concurrence of the registrar. By the Bill the rules were to be made by the Lord Chancellor alone, subject only to this, that the rules are to be laid on the table of each of the Houses of Parliament, if sitting, and, if not, then a certain number of days after it next sits, and that either House could annul the whole of the rules. There was no power to reject some and modify others, but the rules must be rejected as a whole. That seemed extremely dangerous, and the council had pressed upon the Lord Chancellor that, although it might be very right that the ultimate issue of the rules should be vested in his lordship, the rules should be prepared after being submitted to some practical body, which should be representative of practising solicitors and practising barristers-in other words, those with whom the responsibility and the work of carrying out the Act would rest.

« PreviousContinue »