nished pursuant to the statute, either voluntarily or by order of court, it constitutes no part of the complaint. Roberts v Vornholt, 126 Ind. 511 (26 N. E. Rep. 207); Hoover v Weesner, 147 Ind. 510 (45 N. E. Rep. 650; 46 N. E. Rep. 905). In Iowa the plaintiff in an action for the recovery or partition of real property, and the defendant, if he claim title, is required to attach to his pleading an abstract of his title giving reference to the records, and written evidence is confined to matters recited in such abstract. Code (1897), §§ 4188, 4242. In Maine in an action for the recovery of real estate the demandant or plaintiff need not state in the writ the origin of his title, or the deduction of it to himself, " but, on application of the tenant, the court may direct the demandant to file an informal statement of his title, and its origin." Rev. Stat. (1883), ch. 104, § 3. In condemnation proceedings by cities and towns, "an abstract of the title of such property, or of any parcel or parcels thereof, certified by the register or deputy register of deeds, shall also be prima facie evidence as to ownership, and persons having an interest in any such property, and the extent and nature of such interest." Howell's Ann. Mich. Stat. 1882, p. 1300b, § 22. Under Mississippi Code, after issue joined in ejectment, either party may require a bill of particulars of his claim or title which shall consist of a short abstract of the document ary evidences of such title, with a succinct recital of the contents of lost or destroyed instruments or the facts which will be relied on to establish title by inheritance. The court may

allow amendments, but in all cases evidence of title shall be confined to the matters contained in the bill of particulars. Ann. Code (1892) § 1652. In New York, in actions for the cancellation of liens created by invalid tax sales, certified searches of title, properly verified, may be received and acted upon as evidence of the original ownership of the land sold for taxes. People v. Wemple, 67 Hun. 495.

Sec. 21. Right of abstracter to use public records— Common law principles At common law no person had a right to examine or copy the records in a public office in which he had no interest, present or prospective. State v. Rachac, 37 Minn. 372 (35 N. W. Rep. 7); Hanson v. Eichstaedt, 69

Wis. 538 (35 N. W. Rep. 30); Scribner v. Chase, 27 Ill. App. 36; Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299 (46 Am. Rep. 318); Randolph v. State, 82 Ala. 527 (2 So. Rep. 714; 60 Am. Rep. 761); Webber v. Townley, 43 Mich. 534 (5 N. W. Rep. 971; 38 Am. Rep. 213); Bean v. People, 7 Colo. 200 (2 Pac. Rep. 909); In re McLain, 8 Report 313; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., § 473; McCaraher v. Commonwealth, 5 Watts & S. 21 (39 Am. Dec. 106); Ziegler v. Commonwealth, 12 Pa. St. 227. This doctrine is emphatically assailed by Morse, J., without the citation of authority and in a discussion not necessary to a decision of the case, in Burton v. Tuite, 78 Mich. 363 (44 N. W. Rep. 282; 7 L. R. A. 73); and the case of People v. Cornell, 47 Barb. (N. Y.), 329, sometimes cited as being against the rule announced, is overruled in People v. Cornell, 35 How. Pr. (N. Y.), 31. By the application of the rule set forth above it has been the unanimous decision of the courts of last resort that in the absence of a statute modifying the common law, an abstracter has no right to search the records generally and to copy or abstract the entire records of a county for use in his private business. Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299 (46 Am. Rep. 318); Randolphy. State, 82 Ala. 527 (2 So. Rep. 714; 60 Am. Rep. 761); Bean v. People, 7 Colo. 200 (2 Pac. Rep. 909); Buck v. Collins, 51 Ga. 891 (21 Am. Rep. 236); Land Title Co. v. Tanner, 99 Ga. 470 (27 S. E. Rep. 727); Scribner v. Chase, 27 Ill. App. 36; Cormack v. Wolcott, 37 Kan. 391 (15 Pac. Rep. 245); Boylan v. Warren, 39 Kan. 301 (18 Pac. Rep. 174; 7 Am. St. Rep. 551); Belt v. Prince George's County Abst. Co., 73 Md. 289 (20 Atl. Rep. 982; 10 L. R. A. 212; Ballards' Law Real Prop., Vol. II, §§ 1-3; Webber v. Townley, 43 Mich. 534 (5 N. W. Rep. 971; 38 Am. Rep. 213); Diamond Match Co. v. Powers, 51 Mich. 145 (16 N. W. Rep. 314); Newton v. Fisher, 98 N. C. 20 (3 S. E. Rep. 822); In re Webster, 18 U. C. C. B. 87; Ross v. McLay, 26 U. C. C. B. 190; In re Caswell, 18 R. I. 835 (29 Atl. Rep. 259); Mechem on Public Officers, § 739; Barber v. West Jersey Title & Guaranty Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 158 (32 Atl. Rep. 222). The right to inspect and copy or abstract the public records is undoubted to those that have an interest therein, either present or prospective, and this right includes that of having their attorneys or agents to perform this service

for them. Warvelle on Abstracts, p. 63; Mechem on Public Officers, & 738; State v. Williams, 41 N. J. Law 332; Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299 (46 Am. Rep. 818); Randolph v. State, 82 Ala. 527 (2 So. Rep. 714; 60 Am. Rep. 761); Daly v. Dimock, 55 Conn. 579 (12 Atl. Rep. 405); People v. Walker, 9 Mich. 328; Rex v. Merchant's Tailor Co., 2 B. & Ad. 115 (22 E. C. L. 40). When specially employed in a certain case by one having such an interest in the records as would give him the right to examine them, the right of individuals or corporations, engaged in the business of making abstracts, to have access to the records for the purpose of performing that particular service, such as preparing an abstract of a specified title, can not be denied. Boylan v. Warren, 39 Kan. 301 (18 Pac. Rep. 174; 7 Am. St. Rep. 551); Brewer v. Watson, 61 Ala. 310; Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299 (46 Am. Rep. 318); Randolph v. State, 82 Ala. 527 (2 So. Rep. 714; 60 Am. Rep. 761); Barber v. West Jersey Title & Guaranty Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 158 (32 Atl. Rep. 222); Mechem on Public Officers, § 738.

It has been argued in a large number of cases that as the records are public, every person has a right to inspect, examine and copy them, at`all reasonable times and in a proper way; that ministerial officers charged with the custody of books and records can not deny access to their offices or the books therein contained to any person coming there at a proper time and in a proper manner, and that any person so desiring has a right to examine such books and records without charge, not as a privilege or favor, but as a matter of right. Phelan v. State, 76 Ala. 49; Lum v. McCarty, 39 N. J. Law 287; Burton v. Tuite, 78 Mich. 363 (44 N. W. Rep. 282; 7 L. R. A. 73); People v. Richards, 99 N. Y. 620 (1 N. E. Rep. 258); People v. Cornell, 47 Barb. 329; People v. Reilly, 38 Hun. 429; Townshend v. Register, 7 How. Pr. 318; Johnson v. County of Wakulla, 28 Fla. 720, 733 (9 So. Rep. 690); State v. Leach, 60 Me. 58 (11 Am. Rep. 172); Newton v. Fisher, 98 N. C. 20 (3 S. E. Rep. 822); Hunter v. Windsor, 24 Vt. 327; Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29 (6 N. E. Rep. 559); Daly v. Dimock, 55 Conn. 579, 588; Parsons v. Randolph, 21 Mo. App. 353.

Sec. 22. Right of abstracter to use public recordsStatutory provisions. The strict rule of the common law requiring one to have an interest in the contents of a public record before he can claim the right to examine it has been modified in nearly all the states by statutes giving every person the right to examine public records, whether interested therein or not, subject to reasonable regulations. See U. S. Rev. Stat., § 828; Supp. to U. S. Stat., p. 602; Ala. Code (1896), §§ 985, 988, 3367 (Laws 1889, p. 73); Ariz. Rev. Stat. (1887), § 554; Cal. Pol. Code, § 4246; Mills' Ann. Colo. Stat. (1891), § 930; Comp. Stat. D. C. (1894), ch. 58, § 37; Fla. Rev. Stat. (1892), § 1391; Ga. Code (1895), §§ 14, 2778; Ida. Rev. Stat. (1887), § 2035; Myers' Ill. Rev. Stat. (1897), ch. 115, § 19a; Webb's Kan. Gen. Stat. (1897), ch. 27, § 165; Wolff's La. Rev. Stat. (1897), § 3082; Me. Rev. Stat. (1883), ch. 73, § 28; State v. Leach, 60 Me. 58 (11 Am. Rep. 172); Poe's Md. Supp., p. 11, Art. 10, § 9, and Laws 1899, p. 647, giving attorneys or their authorized representatives the right to examine the records in the office of the clerk of a court; Mass. Pub. Stat. (1882), ch. 37, § 13; Howell's Supp. Mich. Stat., 787k; Laws 1889, Act No. 205; Aitcheson v. Huebner, 90 Mich. 643 (51 N. W. Rep. 634); Minn. Rev. Stat. (1894), § 765; Mont. Code Civ. Proc. (1895), § 3180; Pol. Code, §§ 1136, 4423; Neb. Comp. Stat. (1895), § 4170; State v. Meeker, 19 Neb. 108 (26 N. W. Rep. 620); N. H. Pub. Stat. (1891), ch 43, § 45; N. J. Gen. Stat. (1895), pp. 857, § 25; 2105, § 17; 99, § 5; 1980, § 2; 1842,

10. Birdseye's N. Y. Rev. Stat. (1896), pp. 1114, §§ 99, 102; 1743, § 49; 3063, § 28; 3157, § 264a. Bates' Ann. Ohio Stat. (1899), § 1153a; Pepper & Lewis' Penn. Dig., p. 4686, §§ 3 and 4; Utah Rev. Stat. (1898), §§ 632, 3375; Vt. Rev. Stat. (1894), § 3009; Hunter v. Windsor, 24 Vt. 327; Lyman v. Windsor, 24 Vt. 580; Lyman v. Edgarton, 29 Vt. 305; Va. Rev. Code (1887), § 3179; Ballinger's Wash. Codes (1897), § 420; W. Va. Code (1891), ch. 117, § 5; State v. Long, 37 W. Va. 266 (16 S. E. Rep. 578); Sanborn & Berryman's Ann. Wis. Stat. (1898), § 700.

A statute conferring the right of inspection and examination by persons not interested must be clear and it will not be extended by construction, Webber v. Townley, 43 Mich. 534

(5 N. W. Rep. 971; 38 Am. Rep. 213); Barber v. West Jersey Title and Guaranty Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 158 (32 Atl. Rep. 222); but persons engaged in the preparation or examination of an abstract may claim the benefit of such a statute. Lum v. Mc Carty, 39 N. J. Law, 287; Burton v. Tuite, 78 Mich. 363 (44 N. W. Rep. 282; 7 L. R. A. 73); People v. Richards, 99 N. Y. 620 (1 N. E. Rep. 258). However, they can not claim the right to abstract the entire records of an office for the purpose of making a set of abstract books for private use or speculation, under a statute simply granting the right of inspection to all persons. Cormack v. Walcott, 37 Kan. 391 (15 Pac. Rep. 245); Boylan v. Warren, 39 Kan. 301 (18 Pac. Rep. 174; 7 Am. St. Rep. 551); Bean v. People, 7 Colo. 202 (2 Pac. Rep. 909); Randolph v. State, 82 Ala. 527 (2 So. Rep. 714; 60 Am. Rep. 761); Buck & Spencer v. Collins, 51 Ga. 391 (21 Am. Rep. 236); Land Title Warranty Co. v. Tanner, 99 Ga. 470 (27 S. E. Rep. 727). A few of the statutes collated above contain special provisions concerning the rights of abstract makers, and some of them have been construed by the courts. Under the Federal statutes it was decided that a person, company or corporation engaged in the business of preparing abstracts, or of guaranteeing titles, as well as any private citizen, has the right to examine, without charge, the judgment dockets, and indexes and cross-indexes thereof, in the offices of the clerks of the United States courts. In re Chambers, 44 Fed. 786; Commonwealth Title Ins. Co. v. Bell, 87 Fed. 19. The statute of Colorado was amended by the next session of the legislature after the decision in the case of Bean v. People, 7 Colo. 202 (2 Pac. Rep. 909), cited above, so as to provide that "any person or corporation engaged in making abstracts or abstract books, and their employees shall have the right, during usual business hours, to inspect and make memoranda or copies of the contents of all such books and papers, for the purposes of their business; but any such officer may make reasonable and general regulations concerning the inspection of such books and papers by the public;" and in the case of Stockman v. Brooks, 17 Colo. 248 (29 Pac. Rep. 746), the supreme court recognizes that this amendment was undoubtedly adopted to give abstracters the privilege denied them in the case of Bean v.