152 N.W. 354 | N.D. | 1915
Lead Opinion
In April, 1901, defendant Benson was a bonded abstracter, and as such prepared and certified an abstract of title for plaintiff to a certain lot which defendant was about to purchase from one William G. Eideout. At said time, there was in said county a judgment docketed against William J. Eideout upon which there was due the sum of $81.58. The abstracter knew neither the judgment debtor nor any person of the name of Eideout within the county, and certified that there was no judgment of record “against any of the within-named grantees, . . . which are liens on said premises.” On
Appellant cites a long line of cases showing that the ancient rule that the court would pay no attention to a middle initial has been largely, if not entirely, abrogated by the modern decisions. This is, of course, a natural consequence of the increase of population and the frequence with which persons appear with both Christian names and surnames identical. Aside from the distinction as to the age of the authority, there is a still further division of the cases along the lines of the extraneous knowledge of the person making the examination. Thus, if William G-. Rideout had been served in a civil action with a summons in which his name had been erroneously written William J. Rideout, it is not likely that the proceedings would have been held to be a nullity, because certain duties devolved upon him by reason of the fact that he was made the recipient of a copy of the summons. Por this very reason the case of Johnson-Day, supra, is not in point in this case, it being evident that a notice relative to mortgage wherein there was a description of the land, and page where it might be found in a certain book,
As stated in the note in 23 L.E.A. 818: “The general rule by which an initial of a middle name is regarded as no part of the name is denied application to the case of docketing a judgment for constructive notice.” Judgments stand in a class by themselves because there is no extraneous data from which the examiner can determine the identity of the person. In this it differs from chattel mortgages, where the searcher always has the description of the property covered thereby as a guide to aid him in determining the identity of the person executing the same. Eor these reasons we limit the application of this rule to judgments alone, leaving other questions to be determined when reached. In the case at bar there is nothing to indicate that William J. was the same and identical person as William G., the middle initials being different. Had one or the other of the initials been entirely omitted, and either the grantee of the deed or thé judgment debtor been shown as simply William Ride-out, a different state of facts would exist, and possibly it would be the duty of the abstracter to show the judgment. Upon this, however, we express no opinion. Under the existing facts, however,^ he was confronted with a name which, though similar, was yet complete, and
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. Lid the judgment docketed in the name of Wm. J. Rideout operate to give constructive notice that the judgment was against Wm. G. Rideout, the time name of the judgment debtor, or put the searcher upon inquiry to determine the fact of identity ? This precedent stops not with the question of constructive notice concerning judgment dockets, but under our law as to filing of chattel mortgages also indexed only as against the mortgagor, our holding as to constructive notice will likewise apply to constructive notice afforded by the chattel mortgage indices of mortgagors, and either oblige a party to search, or relieve the party interested from search, with reference to the middle initial or name, according as this case is determined. The laws as to constructive notice afforded by tens of thousands of entries of record are thus in effect passed upon by this decision. This is mentioned that the importance of this precedent in business affairs may not be overlooked in connection with the policy of electing, if so it may be termed, which rule of several prevailing throughout the United States as to constructive notice concerning middle names shall be imputed by these records. Because of this the writer offers this dissent.
In order to avoid confusion in application of precedent it is well to state some of the general rules to be deduced from decisions. It should be remarked that indices of real estate records and decisions thereon concerning identity of names and initials or abbreviations for names are not altogether precedent as to the rule of constructive notice to be 'here, announced. Concerning real estate transactions the records compelled to be kept by law usually, if not always, afford a double check to the purchaser against error, inasmuch as in addition to the index by
At common law there were but two material parts to a name, namely, the surname and the Christian name; the former the family name, the latter the baptismal name. No middle name was recognized at common law as the badge of identity, but strictness was required in the designation of both Christian and surnames, but the Christian name could be designated by initial or abbreviation and still impart constructive notice. Thus, John Brown could be designated as J. Brown, and constructive notice in the latter would operate as well as in the former; but Jas. Brown could, under no circumstances, be held to impart constructive notice that the person intended was John Brown. Thus emphasis was laid at common law upon the correct designation of the Christian name or abbreviation for it. And such explains decisions like Johnson v. Hess, 126 Ind. 298, 9 L.R.A. 471, 25 N. E. 446, wherein a judgment against one William hfankedick was held not to charge constructive notice to a purchaser from Henry William or IT. W. Mankedick, inasmuch as no notice could be imputed that they were in the same person, because the Christian name or initial standing therefor apparently designated a different person. To that extent there is unanimity in the holdings.
Some few states, as Wisconsin, base their holdings upon the letter of their statute, and are driven to what, in the absence of statute, can properly be designated as extremely technical or unreasonable holdings. The Wisconsin statute requires an entry to be made of “the name at length
Maine in Dutton v. Simmons, 65 Me. 583, 20 Am. Rep. 729, departed admittedly from the common law and “the law of the Supreme Court of the United States, and of many, if not most, of the state courts in this country,” and followed Massachusetts, which state had in Com. v. Hall, 3 Pick. 262, held that Charles Hall and Charles James Hall are to be regarded as different names.
Pennsylvania in 1844 departed from the common-law rule in a per curiam, opinion (Wood v. Reynolds, 7 Watts & S. 406), holding that a judgment entered against John M. Gruver in the name of John Gruver did not impart constructive notice. There was no discussion of cases attempted. It was later followed by a per curiam, opinion in Hutchinson’s Appeal, 92 Pa. 186, cited in the majority opinion. These cases were later overruled by Jenny v. Zehnder, 101 Pa. 296, wherein an entry on the judgment index as “E. Zehnter” was held to be notice
As intimated at the beginning of this dissent, the rule announced in this case is bound to be precedent as to what constructive notice is imputed from the index of mortgagors of chattel mortgages. No fine-spun distinction consistently can be drawn between constructive notice imparted from a judgment docket and the constructive notice imparted from an index of chattel mortgagors. There is a lame attempt in the main opinion to make this distinction in the assertion, “judgments stand in a class by themselves, because there is no extraneous data from which the examiner can determine the identity of the person. In this it differs from chattel mortgages, where the searcher always has the description of the property covered thereby as a guide to aid him in determining the identity of the persons executing the same. For these reasons we limit the application of this rule to judgments alone, leaving other questions to be determined when reached.” This statement begs as well as befogs the issue, because it is not the chattel mortgage that affords constructive notice, but the record of the indexing of it. When the searcher running through, not the mortgages, but the chattel mortgage index of mortgagors, discovers indexed a chattel mortgage given by W. J. Hideout upon a search of chattel mortgages for Wm. G. Hideout, the searcher must have the same right to rely or not upon whether the middle initial imparts notice, as he does in this instance where the judgment docket shows Wm. J. instead of Wm. G. It is the judgment docket which, by imparting notice or not, says he must or must not search further. Under the rule announced in the majority opinion he need not consult the judgment or make further inquiry, something that must strike the ordinary man as permitting culpable negligence in a search of the records by one about to buy on the strength of them. It certainly renders an abstract of title a delusion and a snare. The rule is announced emphatically in 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 151, in the following language, every word of which is used advisedly and is of importance as defining the rule governing searches of judgment dockets and chattel mortgage indexes both and alike “the constructive notice which flows exclusively from the record cannot be more extensive than the facts stated therein, and must be understood to be only such notice as could have been obtained from an actual inspection of the record. A subse
To the'writer it would seem that, if any departure from the common law is to be declared, it should be based upon the Illinois rule wherein the' record title of the real estate controls. The rule is arbitrary, but