« PreviousContinue »
of any such outstanding interest so far as the examiner is able to do so;
2. To avoid the prejudice of the rights of the owners of restrictive covenants and agreements who are not joined as defendants by name;
3. To avoid the prejudice of the rights of the owners of surrounding contiguous property, who are not made defendants by name;
4. To require the guardian ad litem appointed in the action to report to the Court that he has examined the papers required to be submitted to it, and to make a report upon the facts resulting from such examination. The object of this being to prevent the sacrifice of the rights which this guardian is appointed to protect through his mere formal participation in the action, and further to advise the Court, so far as his examination can do so, of any error or fraud, or result of incompetency of the official examiner;
5. To set forth for the information of the Court verbatim copies of parts of certain instruments, as to which the mere opinions of the examiner may now be given. In the opinion of the Committee too much force is now given by the law to the unsupported ex parte opinions of the examiner in respect to instruments, the substance of which he is not required to set forth in his certificate, and in respect to which his conclusions might be obviously wrong if the copies of the instruments themselves were submitted therewith;
6. To require the examiner to state in detail facts showing the jurisdiction of a Court to render a judgment, where the title is devolved through such judgment;
7. To require the examiner to give a chain of title for a period which will satisfy the Court, and to state his reasons for not giving a longer chain. At present the action of an examiner in this respect is wholly arbitrary, and he may extend his chain just far enough back to avoid bringing in by name parties who may well be the true owners of a title, where there are conflicting chains;
8. To secure to a party represented by guardian ad litem on a trial the same rights which are accorded to a party represented in person or by attorney or counsel;
9. To correct an unintelligible phrase in the present subdivision 2 of the detailed statement of the examiner's certificate.
The Committee deems this explanation due to the members of the Legislature, in order that the true object of its efforts may be understood. They are solely to add to the efficiency of the law, and to prevent the repetition in this State of the great injustice to a real owner which is made apparent in respect to the operation of the California law by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the American Land Company vs. Zeiss, above mentioned.
Very truly yours,
CHARLES A. BOSTON, New York.
The report of the Committee on the Selection of Candidates for Judicial Office.
Richard L. Hand, of Elizabethtown:
Mr. President, the committee has a very brief report which is presented for the purpose of eliciting some expression of views from the Association which will guide it in its duties.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL
Your Committee on the Selection of Candidates for Judicial Office would respectfully report:
That it has felt called upon to take action, during the past year, in a single case only, in which it expressed disapproval of the selection of William Willett, Jr., for the position of Justice of the Supreme Court.
The entire Bar of the State is deeply interested in the succession to Judges Haight, Vann, Cullen and Gray, of the Court of Appeals; the term of office, of the first two, expiring with the current year, and, of the others, with the year 1913. That the constitution of that distinguished Court may be so completely altered, by introduction of others in place of so many experienced and able jurists, is certainly of great importance and calls for most earnest and effective use of such influence as this Association may be able to exert in the direction of minimizing the public loss likely to occur.
Your committee, from its organization, has felt some embarrassment as to the proper scope of its activities and has practically declined all interference until nomination to judicial office has been in fact made. It is doubtful, however, whether the language of Clause XXIII of the Constitution, imposing the duty "to prevent the nomina
tion, election or appointment of unfit or incompetent perand where the same is threatened, to aid in securing the nomination, election or appointment of fit and competent judicial officers" can be harmonized with such a view. We are, nevertheless, impressed with the difficulty of any action by this Association, unless it be in very exceptional and extraordinary cases, by which it would attempt to forestall the action of nominating bodies; and think it would, in most cases, not only be objectionable in itself but tend to defeat its own ends and impair the usefulness of the Association in this field.
The Judiciary Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York has already considered the subject of proper action in respect to judicial nominations, and this committee has been favored, by the courtesy of the chairman, Mr. Guthrie, with a copy of its report.
Your committee presents this subject here and now in the hope that such discussion and expression may be occasioned thereby as to furnish a guide, to the extent at least of eliciting the general sentiment and judgment of this Association as to the proper functions of the committee and the scope and method of their performance.
Respectfully submitted, January 19th, 1912.
RICHARD L. HAND,
Without objection the report will be received and filed and is open for discussion.
Francis Lynde Stetson, of New York:
Mr. President, I trust that this Association will be prepared to take a step forward so far as the Bar of the State
is concerned, as already has been done by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. As long ago as 1881, a resolution was adopted in the Association of the Bar of the City of New York appointing a committee on judicial nominations, which with varying success and embarrassments has labored from year to year endeavoring to affect the opinion of the public generally, and especially of nominating bodies, with reference to the character of the Judges and the capacity of the Judges, or the candidates for judicial office to be selected. In some years our experience has been quite disappointing; in others a gratifying success has been obtained, but never more so than during the last year, when it was manifest that it was the opinion of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York that was the controlling factor in the selection and election of the Judges to our Supreme Court and other important judicial offices in this city. At a special meeting and after the fullest consideration it was determined by our local association to confide in its standing committee on the judiciary the powers of the association which previously had been exercised by the committee on judicial nominations, and to ask its judiciary committee to confer with a committee possessing similar powers to be appointed by this Association, as well as with other organizations throughout the State, with reference to the selection of Judges for the Court of Appeals as to the State at large, and with reference to the Judges of the Supreme Court within this city. I sincerely hope that the action thus taken by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, after nearly twenty years' experience, may be duplicated and may be re-enforced by the action of this Association of the Bar of the State of New York. This, gentlemen, is not a political question in the partisan sense, but it is a