ABSTRACT OF TITLE. An epitome, or brief statement of the evidences of owner ship of real estate and its encumbrances. See Smith v. Taylor, 82 Cal. 533, 23 Pac. 217; Simon Safe Deposit Co. v. Chisholm, 33 Ill. App. 647 ; Heinsen v. Lamb, 117 Ill. 549, 7 N. E. 75.
An abstract should set forth briefly, but clearly, every deed, will, or other instru ment, every recital or fact relating to the devolution of the title, which will enable a purchaser, or mortgagee, or his counsel, to form an opinion as to the exact state of the title. See 54 L. J. Ch. 466; Kane v. Rippey, 22 Or. 296, 23 PEW. 180.
In England this is usually prepared at the expense of the owner; 1 Dart, Vend. 279. The failure to deliver an abstract in Eng land relieves the purchaser from his con tract in law ; id. 305. It should run back for sixty years; or, since the Act of 38 and 39 Viet. c. 78, forty years prior to the in tended sale, etc.
In the United States, where offices for registering deeds are universal, and convey ancing much legs complicated, abstracts are much simpler than in England, and are usu ally prepared at the expense of the pur chaser, etc., or by his conveyancer. A per son preparing the abstract must understand fully all the laws that can affect real estate ; Banker v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 94 (Gil. 46); and will be held to a strict responsibility in the exercise of the confidence reposed in him ;. Vallette v. Tedens, 122 Ill. 607, 14 N. E. 52, 3 Am. St. Rep. 502; Brown v. Sims, 22 Ind.
App. 317, 53 N. E. 779, 72 Am. St. Rep. 308; Young v. Lohr, 118 Ia. 624, 92 N. W. 684: Security Abstract of Title Co. v. Longacre, 56 Neb. 469, 76 N. W. 1073; but his liability is not that of a guarantor of the title; Dun dee Mortgage & Trust Inv. Co. v. Hughes, 20 Fed. 39 ; Wacek v. Frink, 51 Minn. 282, 53 N. W. 633, 38 Am. St. Rep. 502 ; and will ex tend only to his employer; Symns v. Cutter, 9 Kan. App. 210, 59 Pac. 671; Equitable Building & Loan Ass'n v. Bank, 118 Tenn. 678, 102 S. W. 901, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 449, 12 Ann. Cas. 467.
Where an abstract of title is made for a vendor, warranted to be true and perfect, the vendee refusing to take the property without it, the company making it was held liable for omissions in it ; Dickle v. Abstract Co., 89 Tenn. 431, 14 S. W. 896, 24 Am. St. Rep. 616. It is not necessary to state that the descriptions of the premises in the vari ous instruments are inconsistent ; American Trust Inv. Co. v. Abstract Co. (Tenn. Ch. App.) S. W. 877. Where the register of deeds records full satisfaction instead of a partial release on the margin of the mort gage record, an abstract maker relying on the marginal entry is guilty of negligence ; Wacek v. Prink, 51 Minn. 282, 53 N. W. 633. 38 Am. St. Rep. 502.
See Equitable Bldg. & L. Ass'n v. Bank, 118 Tenn. 678, 102 S. W. 901, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 449, 12 Ann. Cas. 407 ; Ward. Abstr. ; TITLE.