intestate and without issue. These facts were never questioned until many years thereafter, when the land was built on and became very valuable. Suit was brought and the fact proven that both of these men had contracted a common-law marriage with two Indian women, and left surviving them a number of children who were the plaintiffs in the case, and who received a large sum of money from the defendants for their interest in the land. (See No. 60, Dec. Term, 1880, Com. Pleas Ct., and No. 41, Nov. Term, 1880, U. S. Cir. Ct.)

Another case was one which involved the title to a very valuable piece of downtown real estate. An illegitimate child lived with her aunt, who was her mother's sister, both inheriting from the same ancestor. The aunt was recognized as the sole owner and as such disposed of the property, ignoring the rights of her niece, who was entitled to an undivided half of the property. The niece was compelled to disclose her relationship and prove her right to her interest, which she succeeded in doing.

All of these cases are good illustrations of the uncertainty of titles. In neither case did the statute of limitations protect the parties interested, as the statute does not run against co-tenants and none of the defects were disclosed by an examination of the record.

It has become a very common practice among certain foreigners to represent themselves in deeds passing title as unmarried. Title Insurance Companies are practically compelled to accept such statements as correct, as there seems to be no practical way to verify the statements made in their deeds. This has become such a menace to title examiners that a bill is seriously being considered, to be introduced in the next Legislative session, giving the husband the right to convey without his wife, and the wife to convey her separate estate without her husband. The wife has been relieved of almost every other disability. Why not this also?

If you then wish to secure absolute protection against loss by reason of a defective title, or annoyance by reason of the many questions which may be raised regarding your title, by all means have your title insured by a reputable title company. Its capital is put up for the very purpose of protecting you, and every fact necessary for establishing your title has been carefully filed away for your use.

From the foregoing it will be seen that a title is no better than

the weakest link in the chain. But a Title Policy guarantees against all possible defects.

What Are the Possible Defects Insured Against?

1. A Deed in the Chain of Title may be a forgery.

2. A Deed may have been made under a Power of Attorney after the death of the principal, which renders it void.

3. A Deed may be made by an insane person or incompetent person.

4. A Deed may be made by a person of the same name as the cwner, but having no interest in the property.

5. A testator may have a child born after the date of his will, rendering the will void as to such child.

6. In titles passing through estates all the heirs may not be named in the Deed or named in the proceedings confirming the title.

In one case an adopted daughter was omitted. In another a lunatic son was forgotten. In another, on account of a secret marriage, the children of an heir were not named. In another, an illegitimate child was not named as her mother's heir.

7. A proceeding in Court may be void or voidable for want of jurisdiction or other reasons.

8. Within three years after death a Deed may be defeated by discovery of a will.

The terms of a will may be misconstrued.

SUPREME COURT CHECKS

By Everett P. Wheeler of the New York Bar.

Senator Borah's articles are always entitled to respect. His last deliverance on the Supreme Court reminds one of Cleveland's sayings: "The campaign of education is a continual duty." The article referred to gives occasion for a restatement of the fundamental principle of the organization of the Supreme Court.

When the people of the United States framed the Federal 'Constitution they established a government with certain powers which were defined in a written instrument which we call the Constitution. The people also determined in this same instrument to limit in some respects the powers of the several State Governments. The question naturally arose-how shall these limitations be enforced? The people in their Constitution provided for a Supreme Court of the United States which should have jurisdiction over controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Its decisions were to be final.

The love of power is natural to man and the State Governments at an early period showed a disposition to transcend the limits which the people had thus set to their powers and to encroach upon the powers of the general government. Laws were passed taxing the agencies of the general government, taxing commerce between the States, and limiting the rights of citizens of one State to do business in another. Finally, several of the States undertook to tax and regulate immigration into those States from foreign countries. The courts of the several States in which these acts had been passed sustained their validity. But in every one of the instances mentioned the Supreme Court of the United States in virtue of the power given it by the Constitution overruled the State Courts and held the acts of the State Legislatures to be in violation of the limits which the people through their Constitution had fixed. It was not the Court, properly speaking, that overruled the acts of the State Legislature; but the people themselves through the Constitution which they had made. The Court acted as a tribunal to enforce the sovereign will of the people. The power thus conferred upon the Court was undoubtedly great, but experience has shown that it was vital to the existence of the Government. If the decisions of the State Courts and the acts of the State Legislatures which have been referred to had been sustained the Government of the United States would have been weak and inefficient and would have gone to pieces at the first attack.

From the beginning the Supreme Court has recognized the greatness of the task thus imposed upon it and has held that an act either of Congress or the State Legislature should not be declared to be in excess of the powers conferred by the people upon their Legislatures except in a clear case. In every decision where the power has been exercised the concurring Judges have held that the case was clear. What the dissenting Judges said in effect was that to them the repugnancy was not clear. One of the most important of the decisions that has been referred to, that in the Passager tax cases (7 Howard 283) which upheld the right of Congress to control immigration into the country, was by a court almost equally divided. Five Judges concurred in the decision, four dissented. But the people have acquiesced in the soundness of the decision and no one now would think of disputing it. If each State could regulate for itself immigration and allow any persons it chose to enter its domain, this would in effect subvert any restrictions which might be placed by other States. It is clear to us now, though it was not to four learned Judges, that this subject is one for the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

The radical fallacy in the learned Senator's proposition is this: If it were required that a majority of the Court should concur in a decision this would really put the decision in the hands of the minority. Three dissenting Judges would really decide the case.

Every one admits that the quantity of legislation in this country is excessive. Let us be thankful that there are some limits to the powers of the Legislatures and that we have a Supreme Court to enforce these limitations.

TITLE AND ABSTRACT

DEPARTMENT

Frank C. Hackman, Editor in Charge

PIONEER CANADIAN TITLE COMPANY

Not so very long ago, a group of Canadian business men and financiers, headed by Sir Lomer Gouin, Sir Herbert Holt and Ernest R. Decary, with a dozen King's Counsel, bank officers and leaders in the business world, organized The Title Guaranteee and Trust Corporation of Canada, with a subscribed capital of one million dollars.

Its offices are spacious and well finished for the work in hand. The company was formed on the theory;

First, that title insurance was a necessity in Quebec; that guarantees of title would afford, through a properly worded insurance policy, complete protection for widows, orphans and investors.

Again, it was thought that the mortgage lender needs prompt payment of interest and certainty of payment of principal on moneys advanced.

This pioneer company, recognizing the fact that mortgage borrowers generally do not plan to pay their mortgages in cash when due, but as they are called expect to replace the mortgages elsewhere, which takes time, and to meet this custom of the trade, to see fair play between the borrower and the lender, the company guarantees for one year, if necessary, in which to collect the principal its absolute payment, also of the interest regularly at the rate provided.

This Company guarantees mortgages on selected first properties, especially in Montreal or throughout Quebec. The Company collects the interests, pays all taxes and assessments, keeps the fire insurance in force, and relieves clients of all care and responsibility. It also pays to the mortgage holder on the day it is due principal and interest, whether received from the borrower or not, thus insuring regularity of income.

There is no question but what in the hands of Mr. Ernest R. Decary, a thoroughly competent and qualified title and financial expert, this company is bound to succeed. Its guarantee is absolute; it relieves the investor of trouble and worry; it has introduced into Quebec and Canada a new class of insurance which has met with the ready appreciation of mortgage holders.

The title guarantee insurance policy is one which commends it