Chase v. Heaney

Citations

• 70 Ill. 268

Syllabus

<p>1. Contbact—implied by one undertaking to make an abstract of title from the records. If a person engages in the business of searching the public records, examining titles to real estate, and making abstracts thereof, for compensation, the law will imply that he assumes to possess the requisite knowledge and skill, and that he undertakes to use due and ordinary care in the performance of his duty; and for a failure in either of these respects, resulting in damages, the party injured is entitled to recover.</p> <p>2. Where a party was employed to examine the records and make an abstract of the title to real estate, and he omitted to note the fact of a judgment and sale of the land, for taxes, of which the purchaser was ignorant until the time for redeeming had expired, whereby he was caused to pay out money to remove the cloud upon his title, it was held, that the party making the abstract was liable in damages to the purchaser for the sum so paid by him to remove the cloud.</p> <p>3. A party examining the title to real estate for pay, can not limit his liability by an obscure certificate to the abstract, without specially calling the attention of the other party to it. If he discovers that he can not furnish a complete and reliable abstract, it is his duty to give the other party notice of the fact, that he may apply elsewhere; otherwise, such other party will have a right to rely on his competency and fidelity in this respect.</p> <p>4. Presumption—as to whether a judgment is entered of record. In a suit by a purchaser of land, against a party examining the title for pay, for neglecting to show the fact of a judgment, and sale of the land, the latter contended that no recovery could be had, as it was not shown the judgment and sale were entered of record: Held, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it would be presumed the officers of the court did their duty, and promptly made a record of the judgment and sale.</p>