In France registration of deeds is universal. Sales, mortgages, gifts and successions; easements, leases of over 18 years and transactions affecting the land to the extent of three years' rent may lose priority if not registered. Wills need not be registered. Mortgages must be re-registered every ten years. Purchase deeds are registered by filing full copies. Registries are established in all the considerable towns. The title can usually be fully investigated from the documents in the registry. Official searches for mortgages are commonly resorted to. Under the monarchy the land system was practically copyhold tenure, but greater validity was attached to the Court Rolls than was the case in England. The present system was established by a law of 1790 after the abolition of seignorial institutions in 1789. This was modified by the Code Napoleon, and further perfected by a law of 1855 which is still in force. With regard to cost, the out standing feature is the government duty, which is now perma nently fixed at rates ranging from 15% in low values to I HI-% in high values. Besides this there is a temporary tax of 7% on the first sale after 1926. Before the War it was about 61%. There are also small charges for registration. The combined cost of duty and professional help works out on a general average at about 25 to 3o% on the value and is paid by the purchaser. The vendor as a rule has no costs.
By far the most important examples of registration of title at present existing—because they show how the system works when applied to large European communi ties, with all the intricacies and complications of modern civilized life—are to be found in Germany, Austria, Hungary and the other states formerly parts of the Austrian empire. In some parts of these countries registration of title has been established for several centuries—notably in Bohemia ; in most parts it has existed for the greater part of the 19th century; in some districts, again, notably Tirol and the Rhine Provinces, it is of comparatively recent introduction. In all cases it appears to have been preceded by a system of deed registration, which materially facilitated its establishment. In some cases, Prussia, for instance, the former registers were kept in such a way as to amount in themselves to little short of a registry of title. Very low scales of fees suffice to pay all official expenses. In case of error, the officials are personally liable ; failing these, the state. Other states are very similar. Owing to the ease and simplicity of the registers, it is not always necessary to employ professional help. When such help is required, the fees are low. In Vienna (prior to the War) LI was a very usual fee for the purchaser's lawyer, o being
seldom reached. In Germany the register is private. In Austria it is open to public inspection. The systems are usually admin istered in districts, about 20 to 3om. across, attached to the local law courts. In Baden and Wiirttemberg every parish (commune) has its own registry. All ordinary dealings are transacted with the greatest expedition. Security is absolute. Very full information as to the German and Austrian systems is given in the parlia mentary report (C. 8,139) of 1896. There has been no change of importance since that date. (C. F.-BR.) United States.—"The characteristics of the American record ing system which distinguish it from other systems are these: The document recorded is a deed, not a memorandum of a transfer or an agreement for a transfer ; the deed is operative without record, the title passing before the deed is recorded; the record is not a mere device for preserving evidence, but gives a legal priority to the grantee of the recorded deed. In the first par ticular it differs from the mediaeval registry system; in the second from the continental registry systems and the American Torrens system of registration; in the third from the recording system in England under local customs, like those of Middlesex and Yorkshire," Joseph H. Beale, "The Origin of the System of
Recording Deeds in America," 19 Green Bag, 335 (19o7). Land registration in America antedates the English system established by the statute of 7 Anne c. 20. It began in Plymouth Colony in 1626 and in Virginia and Connecticut in 1639. The first legisla tion, however, that established the principle of preferring a re corded deed to a prior unrecorded one was the Massachusetts statute of 1841. Since that time recording has been inaugurated in every State as its aid in facilitating commerce in land became apparent. The basic principles of the American recording system are two : registration gives absolute notice of the contents of every deed properly recorded to every person subsequently dealing with the property, whose duty it is to examine the record, and, secondly, gives all persons the right to rely upon the records as containing a complete catalogue of every outstanding estate that could affect their rights as purchasers of the land. Consequently, though registration is not mandatory, a failure to register gives subsequent parties dealing witTi the property in good faith superior rights.
The basic principle is easily illustrated by the following case: A, the owner of Blackacre, conveys in fee simple to B who fails to record. A thereafter conveys to C, who has no actual notice of the prior conveyance to B. C's title is superior to the earlier title of B, though in some States this is true only if C records his deed before B records his prior deed. It should be noticed that recording is not necessary for the acquisition of title. Upon the conveyance to B, he immediately acquires title, but this is subject to be divested by a subsequent conveyance to another purchaser having no notice of the earlier deed. An unregistered deed may also be ineffective as against creditors of the grantor who had no notice of the conveyance.
The registration of deeds, stretching back in the Eastern States to the early colonial period, makes necessary a voluminous system of records. Each county of a State has its central registry system, but the extensive indexes make an examination of title a lengthy and expensive process. Complaints are continually made as to the accuracy of the indexes. The dangers inherent in the recording system have led to the use of title guarantee companies, the activities of which have increased enormously in the past two decades. Also wide efforts for reform in land registration have been directed toward the establishment of the Torrens system to function side by side with the older recording system. Ohio passed legislation establishing the Torrens system in 1896, and Illinois and California followed in 1897. (The Ohio act was later declared to be unconstitutional in State v. Guilbert, 55 Ohio St. 575, and was superseded in 1913 by an act free from the invalidating defects.) By 1915 similar legislation had been enacted by 12 States and by Hawaii and the Philippine Islands. The con stitutionality of such legislation had been established by the lead ing case of Tyler v. Judges, 175 Mass. 68,179 U.S. 405. In 1912 the matter was taken up by the National Conference of Corn missioners on Uniform State Laws and, as a result of their efforts, a uniform statute to establish the Torrens system of registration was recommended to the various States in 1915. The adoption of this statute by three States and the adoption of similar statutes by other States indicates the extent to which the Torrens system has fastened itself upon the legal systems of the various American States. (J. M. LA.)