616). In some of the states the liability of abstracters is prescribed and regulated by statute. Under these statutes such officers are often declared liable for all loss or damage which may happen by reason of any false or erroneous certificate of search, not only to the person or persons to, for, or upon whose order the said certificate was made or given, but also to any person claiming title through, from or under them, or who may suffer loss by reason of the making of such false or erroneous certificate. Gate City Abstract Co. v. Post, 55 Neb. 742 (76 N. W. Rep. 471).

Sec. 6. Liability of abstracter for negligence, fraud or mistake. If the abstracter fails to make necessary searches, or searches without due care, or fails to state in the abstract a material fact discovered by his searches, he is liable to an action for damages. Gilman v. Hovey, 26 Mo. 280; Clark v. Marshall, 34 Mo. 429; Smith v. Holmes, 54 Mich. 104 (19 N. W. Rep. 767); Chase v. Heaney, 70 Ill. 268; Wakefield v. Chowan, 26 Minn. 379 (4 N. W. Rep. 618); Wacek v. Frink, 51 Minn. 282 (53 N. W. Rep. 633 38 Am. St. Rep. 502): Cooper v. Stephenson, 16 Jur. 424; Thomas v. Schee, 80 Ia. 237 (45 N. W. Rep. 539). An abstracter must examine the records themselves, and if he relies upon the indexes thereto or marginal references thereon, and damage results therefrom, he is liable for the loss. Wacek v. Frink, 51 Minn. 282 (53 N. W. Rep. 633; 38 Am. St. Rep. 502). Where an abstracter gives a certificate that he has made an examination and finds no incumbrances against certain property, he will be liable if an incumbrance is of record in such a way as to give constructive notice to every one interested, and actual notice to every one looking for it in the proper way. Dodd v. Williams, 3 Mo. App. 278.

Damages for negligence are recoverable against a person engaged in searching the records and certifying to titles who undertakes to furnish a party a full abstract of title to land which the latter desires to purchase, if, in consequence of the careless omission therefrom of an incumbrance, the purchaser is put to additional expense to perfect the title. Smith v. Holmes, 54 Mich. 104 (19 N. W. Rep. 767). One employed to prepare an abstract of title may be held liable for omitting

a statement as to taxes assessed against the property, Morange v. Mix, 44 N. Y. 315; for failure to state that the property had been sold for taxes, Chase v. Heaney, 70 Ill. 268; or for an erroneous statement of the amount of land embraced in a conveyance, Clark v. Marshall, 34 Mo. 429; but where the certificate of an abstract 66 company, guarantees the above to be a true abstract of the records so far as they relate to the premises described at the head of this brief from the date of the first conveyance or decree of court shown therein," is not false so as to render the company liable if it contains an abstract of all instruments relating to the land described, because of the fact that it does not point out discrepancies in measurements affecting the title to the land. American Trust Inv. Co. v. Nashville Abstract Co., Tenn. (39 S. W. Rep. 877). An attorney at law, holding himself out as a competent person to make and certify abstracts of title who induces parties to buy of him a tract of land by presenting them with an abstract of title thereto on which he certified in writing that "he had carefully examined the title to said lands, and that the same was a full, true and complete abstract of said title," is liable for damages resulting to the purchasers on account of his fraudulent entries as to the character of his title. Thomas v. Schee, 80 Iowa 237 (45 N. W. Rep. 539).

Where an abstracter, without any fraudulent purpose, makes a mistake in an abstract of title, the party employing him cannot hold the abstracter liable for the loss occasioned thereby unless he uses ordinary diligence in informing the abstracter of such mistake, where the loss could be averted, if the abstracter were so informed. Roberts v. Leon Loan and Abstract Co., 63 Iowa 76 (18 N. W. Rep. 702). So, where the plaintiff employed the defendant to make an abstract of title for her, and the defendant carelessly, but without any fraudulent intent, made a mistake in such abstract, whereby the plaintiff was led to believe that she had ten days longer than she actually had in which to redeem her land from a sheriff's sale, and she learned of the mistake one day before the time for redemption expired, it was held that she could not recover of the defendant the loss occasioned by her inability to redeem the land, unless she used ordinary diligence

in endeavoring to get the money to redeem after the mistake was discovered, and in informing the defendant promptly of the mistake. Roberts v. Leon Loan and Abstract Co., 63 Iowa 76 (18 N. W. Rep. 702). Where the plaintiff employed a company engaged in the business of examining and guaranteeing titles to search the title for her and make the conveyance, and through the company's fault the deed was made to the lot adjoining that purchased by the plaintiff, upon which there was a mortgage which was foreclosed and the property sold, the company was held to be liable, and the plaintiff was under no obligation to attempt to sell the lot to which she had title in order to reduce the damages, even though she had previous to the foreclosure had her deed reformed and secured title to the lot actually purchased. Elmer v. Title Guarantee Co., 156 N. Y. 10 (50 N. E. Rep. 420).

A party cannot recover against an abstracter for a false certificate of title, where he does not examine the abstract or have any one do so for him. Trimble v. Stewart, 35 Mo. App. 537. No recovery can be had against an abstracter for failure to report a judgment lien against the property where his employer had purchased the property before he made the examination, and advanced no money on the faith of the statements in the abstract. Roberts v. Sterling, 4 Mo. App. 593; U. S. Wind Engine and Pump Co. v. Linville, 43 Kan. 455 (23 Pac. Rep. 597). It was held in Roberts v. Sterling, 4 Mo. App. 593, that there could be no recovery where a judgment, which is omitted from the abstract, is voluntarily paid and satisfied of record by the purchaser. An abstracter is not liable to his employer beyond nominal damages for failure to note on an abstract a lien junior to his employer's claim of title, unless it appears that he has necessarily suffered special damages on account of such omission. Williams v. Hanley,

16 Ind. App. 464 (45 N. E. Rep. 622). The abstracter is not liable where the existence of a lien omitted from the abstract could be material to the purchaser only on account of an understanding between him and his grantor, of which the abstracter had no notice, and by reason of which a deed, appearing on its face to be absolute, was held to be a mortgage. Roberts v. Sterling, 4 Mo. App. 593. The fact that the borrower knew of the existence of the omitted liens, and acted as

the agent of the lender in ordering the certificate, will not relieve the recorder from liability for errors and omissions in a certificate of search to a party loaning money and relying on the certificate. Houseman v. Girard B. & L. Assn., 81 Pa. St. 256.

Sec. 7. Liability of abstracter-Measure of damages. The measure of damages for an abstracter's failure correctly to state the condition of the title is his employer's actual loss, which is usually the amount that he had to pay to get the title, or to get the incumbrances removed. Allen v. Clark, 7 L. T. N. S. 781; Dodd v. Williams, 3 Mo. App. 278; Morange v. Mix, 44 N. Y. 315; Chase v. Heaney, 70 Ill. 208. An abstracter who has omitted a mortgage from an abstract prepared for an intending purchaser of lands cannot be held liable for any payments made after the purchaser has notice of the mortgage. Brega v. Dickey, 16 Grant's Ch. (U. C.) 494. A party examining a title for another is liable to the extent of any loss sustained on account of any mistake arising from a want of ordinary professional skill or care, but he is not a guarantor or warrantor that there will be no loss. Dundee Mortgage Co. v. Hughes, 20 Fed. Rep. 39; Wacek v. Frink, 51 Minn. 282 (53 N. W. Rep. 633; 38 Am. St. Rep. 502); Rankin v. Schaeffer, 4 Mo. App. 108. The maker of an abstract is liable only for the damage which is the direct consequence of his error or mistake. He is not liable for any loss resulting to his employer on account of defects in the abstract to the extent such loss could have been averted or lessened by prompt action on the part of such employer. Kimball v. Connolly, 33 How. Pr. 247; Roberts v. Leon Loan Co., 63 Ia. 73 (18 N. W. Rep. 702). Where an abstracter or attorney is negligent in preparing or examining an abstract for a mortgagee, the mortgagee may recover the difference in value between the security he contracted for and that which he actually received. Lawall v. Groman, 180 Pa. St. 532 (37 Atl. Rep 98; 57 Am. St. Rep. 662). A party furnishing a certificate of title is responsible for the amount loaned on a mortgage, on the faith of his certificate that the property mortgaged was free of incumbrances, when, in fact, it was

mortgaged for more than its full value, and the money is thereby lost to the lender. Fox v. Thibault, 33 La. Ann. 32.

Sec. 8. Limiting liability of an abstracter. An abstracter may limit his liability to the correctness of the abstract and fullness of search to certain records, ei her by a specific contract to that effect, or by specifying in his certificate the records examined. Thomas v. Carson, 46 Neb. 765 (65 N. W. Rep. 899). But he cannot limit his liability by an obscure statement in the certificate to the abstract, without specially calling the attention of the party employing him thereto. If he discovers that he cannot furnish a complete and reliable abstract, it is his duty to give his employer notice of the fact, that he may apply elsewhere; otherwise, such employer will have a right to rely on his competency and fidelity in this respect. Chase v. Heaney, 70 Ill. 268. A statement in a certificate that the party examining the records finds no conveyance or incumbrance affecting the title, is equivalent to a statement that there are none. Ziegler v. Commonwealth, 12 Pa. St. 227; Philadelphia v. Anderson, 142 Pa. St 357 (21 Atl. Rep. 976).

Sec. 9. Liability of public officers examining titles. In some of the states abstracters are not permitted to search the public records; and, in others, they are required to pay the custodian a fee for the privilege of searching. In such states, it is the practice of the abstracter, after having ascertained the chain of title, to direct written requisitions to the clerks of the various offices for searches for incumbrances or liens of record that may affect the property. Whenever, by statute or custom, it is made an official duty of the officer to make such searches, he is held liable for mistakes and omissions and false certificates of search, to the same extent as an abstracter. McCaraher v. Commonwealth, 5 Watts & S. 21 (39 Am. Dec. 106); Ziegler v. Commonwealth, 12 Pa. St. 227; Houseman v. Girard B. & L. Assn., 81 Pa. St. 256; Siewers v. Commonwealth, 87 Pa. St. 15; Peabody B. & L. Assn. v. Houseman, 89 Pa. St. 261 (33 Am. Rep. 757); Kimball v. Connolly, 33 How. Pr. 247; Lusk v. Carlin, 5 Ill. 395; Smith v. Holmes, 54 Mich. 104 (19 N. W. Rep. 767); Tripp v. Hop