Nystagmus

Due to Circumstances beyond Our Control

“…For example, one who purchases from an adverse possessor may take apparent "rights" in property which later prove to be contingent upon the adverse possessor's mental state during the time the latter was in possession. 3 The Day '4 case discloses again the importance of the remedy (here, quiet title) in making viable the "right" established by the adverse possessor.…”

“…Resolution of these questions appropriately must be in terms of property interests, not constitutional rights. It is essential to note that similar analysis can be elicited by comparing the obviously technical basis for the decision in Barringer 3 with the case which follows it, Capitol Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Smith, 3 which implements Shelley and Barrows by quieting the title of Negro plaintiffs who were conveyed property despite a discriminatory covenant to which their predecessors in title had agreed. Smith hardly seems constitutionally compelled; an argument could even be made that Shelley, which holds the covenant itself constitutionally valid, dictates the opposite result.…”

“…The questions are much more likely to involve undischarged liens, unprobated wills, heirship, invalid tax sales and the like. About the only purpose I can see in a detailed examination of the recording acts and the operation of the state-maintained registry of deeds is as an object lesson to the profession: adopt such onerous rules of search as those of Woods v. Garnett, 2 Tefft v. Munson, 3 and Finley v. Glenn; ' establish such a creaky mechanism for searching title as grantee-grantor and grantorgrantee indexes (often lacking even brief descriptions of the property) ; neglect to provide the customer with protection against mistakes-and someone will come along with a better mousetrap. If this lesson is worth teaching, and I'm not sure it is, it can be taught in far fewer pages of very time-consuming cases than appear in Casner and Leach (125 pages) and other orthodox casebooks.…”

“…Why include two long cases, aggregating 15 pages, on the duty of an occupying cotenant to account to cotenants out of possession? 11 Similarly, the case of Picconi v. Carlin 12 adds almost nothing to what has already been considered in Cohen v. Simpson Real Estate Corp., 3 Highway Holding Co. v. Yara Eng'r Corp., 4 and Klein v. Dove,' 5 -all of which deal with the creation of private and public easements when a purchaser buys by reference to a plat, and with the modes of extinguishing such private rights. The case of King v. Firm 16 is too long, the facts too complex and the opinion insufficiently instructive to justify its use to make the simple point that duties arising under a lease are independent of other obligations of the parties to one another.…”

“…The plain fact is that, since 1937, California has had a statute authorizing the landlord to recover loss-of-bargain damages if he provides for such remedy in the lease. 3 Everybody makes mistakes. But this book has too many of them-and too few compensating advantages-to qualify for classroom use, at least in its present form.…”