The following have been held to be parts of the record : A stipulation as to sale of mortgaged premises and solicitor's fee ; Cord v. Southwell, 15 Wis. 211; depositions in a probate court ; Lipscomb v. Postell, 38 Miss. 476, 77 Am. Dec. 651; affidavits filed in op position to an application for an injunction ; Gagliardo v. Crippen, 22 Cal. 362 ; motions, notices, and rulings of court ; Lemondo v. French, 4 G. Greene (Ia.) 123 ; a finding of the court ; Smith v. Lewis, 20 Wis. 350 ; Sutter v. Streit, 21 Mo. 157 ; a submission and award filed; Buntain v. Curtis, 27 Ill. 374 ; a bill of exceptions settled on an appeal from an order; Mead v. Walker, 20 Wis. 518; an instrument of which over is craved ; Cum mins v. Woodruff, 5 Ark. 116. The opinion of the trial court as to the facts was held a part of the record ; Gregg v. Spencer, 96 Ia. 501, 65 N. W. but in Pennsylvania it was said to be not a good principle so to treat the opinion ; In re Morrison's Estate, 183 Pa. 155, 38 Atl. 895.
Under recording acts. Statutes of the sev eral states have required enrolment of cer tain deeds, mortgages, and other instruments, and declared that the copies thus made should have the effect of records. An instru ment lodged for record is considered as re corded from that time, whether it was actual ly copied in the book or not, or in the proper book or not ; Farabee v. McKerrihan, 172 Pa. 234, 33 Atl. 583, 51 Am. St. Rep. 734.
The sole object of acts for the restoration of lost records is to restore them as they existed ; In re Jones' Estate, 17 Cal. App. 330, 119 Pac. 670 ; Whitney v. Land Co., 119 Ala. 497, 24 South. 259 ; Vail v. Iglehart, 69 Ill. 332.
The legislature has power to provide for the re-establishment of lost record title pa pers to real estate against unknown claim, ants, upon process served by publication ; Title & Document Restoration Co. v. Kerri gan, 150 Cal. 289, 88 Pac. 356, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 682, 119 Am. St. Rep. 199, 11 Ann. Cas. 465 ; that such a statute limited its operation to cases where such records were destroyed by earth-quakes, fire, or flood, will not render it invalid as special legislation ; id. The duty of determining unsettled questions re specting the title to real estate is local in its nature to be discharged in such mode as may be provided by the state in which the land is situated; Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316, 10 Sup. Ct. 557, 33 L. Ed. 918.
Inspection of. Records. At common law, there was no general right of inspection, but the right depended entirely upon the ques tion whether the party seeking to exercise it had an interest. If he had, he was enti tled to exercise the right upon the payment of the usual fees ; 7 Mod. 127 ; 1 Stra. 304 ; 2 id. 260, 954, 1005 ; but a mere stranger who had no such interest had no right of inspec tion at common law ; 8 Term 390 ; and the custodian might permit or refuse the inspec tion at his discretion without any control by a court ; 6 Ad. & El. 84. At a comparatively early period, this distinction between those who had and those who had not an interest became obliterated ; 1 Wils. 297 ; People v. Cornell, 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 329. The effect of modern recording acts making the public notice, has aided to accomplish this result, and, indeed, makes the right of in spection and of enforcing the privilege an es sential one ; 4. D. & R. 820 ; Brewer v. Wat son, 71 Ala. 299, 46 Am. Rep. 318 ; Silver v. People, 45 III. 224 ; Aitcheson v. Huebner, 90 Mich. 643, 51 N. W. 634. It does not ex tend in England to merely quasi-public rec ords, such as court rolls of a manor ; Bunb. 269 ; or to records of a justice of the peace ; Perkins v. Cummings, 66 Vt. 485, 29 Atl. 675 ; or to a marriage license docket ; Mar riage License Docket No 2, 4 Pa. Dist. R. 284 ; contra, marriage license docket, id. 162.1 The right of inspection will not exist as to the record of private suits, at least before trial, where it is sought only to gratify mal ice or curiosity, or to make profit by dis closing private affairs and making public scandalous matters ; Schmedding v. May, 85
Mich. 1, 48 N. W. 201, 24 Am. St. Rep. 74 ; nor does it extend to records required by law to be kept secret, as, the proceedings of a county electrical board ; Gleaves v. Terry, 93 Va. 491, 25 S. E. 552, 34 L. R. A. 144. The right of inspection is secured by statute in most of the states, and is not dependent on interest, though in some cases it is denied if I detrimental to public policy or is sought by a citizen of another state ; Brewer v. Wat son, 61 Ala. 310. In case of refusal, the right may be enforced ; In re Chambers, 44 Fed. 786 ; Lum v. McCarty, 39 N. J. L. 287 ; State v. Long, 37 W. Va. 266, 16 S. E. 578 ; even though the rules of the office require the records to be kept secret. The right when denied is enforced by mandamus ; Barber v. Title & Guaranty Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 158, 32 Atl. 222 ; Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299 ; Aitcheson v. Huebner, 90 Mich. 643, 51 N. W. 634 ; Hawes v. White, 66 Me. 305. In junction is usually held not to be a proper remedy ; Belt v. Abstract Co., 73 Md. 289, 20 Atl. 982, 10 L. R. A. 212 ; Buck v. Collins, 51 Ga. 391, 21 Am. Rep. 236 ; Diamond Match Co. v. Powers, 51 Mich. 145, 16 N. W. 314; Barber v. Title & Guaranty Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 158, 32 Atl. 222. The right of inspection is very much drawn into question in cases where the right is sought to be exercised by abstract and title insurance companies. Ob jections to the use of public offices by the agents of such companies are made upon the ground of interference with the legitimate fees of the public officers, with the business of the office, and of possible injuries to the records. The right has been Sustained in Re Chambers, 44 Fed. 786; Stockman v. Brooks, 17. Colo. 248, 29 Pac. 746 ; People v. Richards, 99 N. Y. 620, 1 N. E. 258 ; Com. v. O'Donnell, 12 W. N. C. (Pa.) 291; and, after some fluctuation, in Barber v. Title & Guar anty Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 158, 32 Atl. 222 ; Bur ton v. Reynolds, 102 Mich. 55, 60 N. W. 452 ; Randolph v. State, 82 Ala. 527, 2 South. 714, 60 Am. Rep. 761; Buck v. Collins, 51 Ga. 391, 21 Am. Rep. 236 ; Belt v. Abstract Co., 73 Md. 289, 20 AU. 982, 10 L. R. A. 212, a statute having been passed as a result of a previous decision otherwise. They are always at the service of a person desiring to examine them ; Miller v. Moise, 168 Fed. 940. A citi zen is not required to show special inter est ; Burton v. Tuite, 78 Mich. 363, 44 N. W. 282, 7 L. R. A. 73. A title insurance com pany has the right to examine judgment in dexes in the district court on a matter of current business if it does not interfere with the clerk in his duties or with persons ex ercising their right of access thereto ; Bell v. Ins. & TruSt Co., 189 U. S. 131, 23 Sup. Ct. 569; 47 L. Ed. 741.
As to the custody of court records and when they may be removed, see In re Cas well, 18 R. I. 835, 29 Atl. 259, 27 L. R. A. 82, 49 Am. St. Rep. 814.
Where the right is permitted, the cus todian may make reasonable rules; People v. Richards, 99 N. Y. 620, 1 N. E. 258 ; Day v. Button, 96 Mich. 600, 56 N. W. 3 ; Upton v. Catlin, 17 Colo. 546, 31 Pac. 172, 17 L. R. A. 282 ; and charge reasonable fees ; Burton v. Reynolds, 102 Mich. 55, 60 N. W. 452. The right to inspect has.been held to Include_the right to copy ; Hanson v. Eictistaedt, 69 Wis. 538, 35 N. W. 30 ; State v. Rachac, 37 Minn. 372, 35 N. W. 7; contra, Boylan v. Warren, 39 Kan. 301, 18 Pac. 174, 7 Am. St. Rep. 551; Randolph v. State, 82 Ala. 527, 2 South. 714, 60 Am. Rep. 761.
As to parish and church registers and rec ords, see REGISTER.
See VITAL STATISTICS; ROGUES' GALLERY.