Opinion of the Court-Talbot, J. these letters, but did for the inspection of many other records as we have seen. The following extracts from the opinion are also instructive regarding the controlling and disputed point in the common law: "The documents in question are of a public nature, and the rule is that every person is entitled to the inspection of such instruments provided he shows the requisite interest therein. And as Lord Denman remarks, in Rex v. Justices of Staffordshire, 6 A. & E. 84, the court is by no means disposed to narrow its authority to enforce by mandamus the production of every document of a public nature in which any citizen can prove himself to be interested. For such persons, indeed, every officer appointed by law to keep records ought to deem himself for that purpose a trustee. The relator asserts no interest to be subserved by an inspection of these letters, except that common interest which every citizen has in the enforcement of the laws and ordinances of the community wherein he dwells. In England, the occasions which generally have required the exercise of the power of the court to enforce inspection of public documents have been those where a party has sought evidence for the prosecution or defense of his rights in pending litigation. In such cases, when the custodian of the documents was a party in the cause, the court usually intervened by rule, otherwise by mandamus. But the existence of a suit was not a sine qua non for the exertion of a power. In Rex v. Lucas et al., 10 East, 235, a mandamus was sought to compel the steward of a manor to permit one claiming certain copyhold lands within the manor to inspect the court rolls and take copies. The lord, claiming himself to be the owner of the lands, resisted, on the ground that there was no cause depending, but the Court of King's Bench granted the writ, notwithstanding the opinion before expressed in Rex v. Allgood, 7 T. R. 742; Lord Ellenborough saying: 'I do not know why there should be any cause depending in order to found an application of this sort. This is not the impertinent intrusion of a stranger, but the application of one who is clearly entitled to the copyhold, unless there be a conveyance of it by those under whom he claims; he may therefore well require to see Opinion of the Court-Talbot, J. whether there appears upon the rolls to be any such conveyance.' So in Rex v. Tower, 4 M. & S. 162, on a controversy, but without suit, between a tenant of the manor and the lord, as to cutting underwood, the court granted a mandamus to inspect the court rolls so far as related to that subject. Likewise in Rex v. Justices of Leicester, 4 B. & C. 891, a mandamus was granted that certain ratepayers be allowed to inspect and take copies of the proceedings and documents relating to the parish rates, although no suit was pending; and, while this case is disapproved in Rex v. Vestryman of St. Marylebone, 5 A. & E. 268, and overruled in Rer v. Justices of Staffordshire, 6 A. & E. 84, yet in neither case is it suggested that it was erroneous because no action had been brought. The disapprobation. turns upon the principle that the ratepayers had no interest to be subserved by the inspection, since no information to be obtained from the documents could aid them in the enforcement or protection of any lawful claim; Lord Denman saying, in the case last cited, that the subject-matter was not one which the ratepayer could bring before the court as a litigant, and hence there was not that direct and tangible interest which is necessary to bring persons within the rule on which the court acts in granting inspection of public documents. In Rex v. Merchant Tailors' Co., 2 B. & Ad. 115, although a mandamus was refused to members of the company seeking an inspection of all the records, books, papers, and muniments of the company, because of the generality of the application, it was conceded by all the judges that, if the application had been limited to some legitimate and particular purpose in respect of which the examination became necessary, it would have been allowed, and that there was no rule that to warrant an order to inspect corporation documents there must actually have been a suit instituted. But whenever the subject was, by reason of his relation to the common interest, permitted to litigate for its protection, the right of inspection was fully secured to him. Thus, in Rex v. Shelley, 3 T. R. 141, where some of the burgage tenants were testing by quo warranto the right of the defendant to be a burgess, a full inspection of the court rolls, not limited to the evidence. Opinion of the Court-Talbot, J. of their own titles, was granted them. In Rex v. Babb, 3 T. R. 579, on an information by three aldermen to inquire into the right of Woolmer to be mayor of Great Grimsby, the relators had a rule for the inspection and copies of all the public books, records, and papers of the borough of Great Grimsby regarding the subject in dispute." In West Jersey Title and Guaranty Co. v. Barber, 49 N. J. Eq. 474, 24 Atl. 381, it was held that an abstract company has the same rights as an attorney or individuals to search the county records for others, and, when employed to examine the title to any particular piece of property, becomes subrogated to the right of the employer to have access to them, notwithstanding it contemplates making a contract of guaranty of the title. In Barber v. West Jersey Title and Guaranty Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 158, 32 Atl. 222, decided in 1894, five years after Burton v. Tuite, the complainant claimed the right to have free access to the records and files daily during business hours for the purpose of inspecting and making abstracts and memoranda. It was held that every person has the right to examine the public records relating to any title in which he is interested, without the payment of fees, subject to reasonable rules and regulations, and that the abstract company has this privilege when employed to examine and guarantee the title to a particular piece of property, but has not the right to occupy the office of the clerk for the purpose of making an abstract of the records in order to set up a rival business to the clerk. In considering the following portion of the opinion, it is well to remember the New Jersey statutes providing for inspection, as before noted: "The case of Lum v. McCarty, 39 N. J. Law, 287, is relied upon to support this decree. In that case Lum was employed to search a specific title, and this court held that he had a right of access to the records in the clerk's office, for that purpose, without the payment of fees to the clerk. But that case is not authority for the contention that any one may occupy the offices of the county clerk until he has made copies of all the records in the care of the clerk for the purpose of setting up a rival office, whereby he will be deprived of the emoluments of his office. It is con Opinion of the Court-Talbot, J. ceded that the corporation complainant is entitled to the same right of access to, and examination of, the public records of the county as an individual would be. Our act respecting conveyances, after providing for the recording of deeds in books to be furnished for that purpose, adds, 'to which books every person shall have access at proper seasons, and be entitled to transcripts from the same on paying the fees allowed by law.' Lum v. McCarty, supra, construed this provision to mean that fees were to be paid to the clerk only when he made searches himself, and did not preclude a person interested from making searches for himself. The law makes it the duty of the clerk to take care of the public records in his office, but gives him no special fees for such service. The only compensation to him are the fees he receives in the ordinary course of his business for searches. To extend the right of search by others beyond this limit will deprive the clerk of the only remuneration he can have for the performance of this duty. In the absence of clear expression, it should not be so enlarged by construction. In other states where the statutory provisions are less favorable to the public officer, the courts have denied the right of any one to make at will an abstract of the official records. The respondent, by force of its incorporation, has the same right to inspect the public records which may lawfully be exercised by an individual. Every person, without legislative authority, may engage in the business of examining and guaranteeing titles as fully as this company is empowered to do by its act of incorporation. When such a person or a company, with such authority, is empowered to examine and guarantee a particular title, the clerk, upon demand, is bound to give. access to the records for that purpose, subject to reasonable rules and regulations." In Fidelity Trust Co. v. Clerk, 65 N. J. Law, 495, 47 Atl. 451, the court sustained the refusal of the clerk to permit an examination of certain indices in the supreme court relating to judgments which were a lien upon lands. In Newton v. Fisher, 98 N. C. 23, 3 S. E. 823, it was said in the opinion: "All persons have the right to inspect these records freely and without charge, and all persons, who may Opinion of the Court-Talbot, J. desire to do so, can get copies by paying the prescribed fees. It is the duty of the register to keep them open to the inspection and examination of all who may desire to inspect and examine them, and for this there is no fee; it is his duty to furnish copies to all who require them and will pay the fees allowed. Perhaps, in addition to this, so long and so universal has been the custom, that it may be said to be the right of lawyers, and others needing them, to take such reasonable memoranda as may not interfere with the rights and duties of the register, and we have never known this refused. We know of no law that requires the register, in this respect, to do more. No one has the right, to use the language of the learned judge in the court below, 'to make copies or abstracts of the entire record of the office, including those instruments in which the person so desiring to make abstracts is not at the time interested, but simply anticipates that he will at some time be interested, and abstracts of which he desires to make for merely speculative purposes. In this view the plaintiff would be entitled to every facility for the legitimate prosecution of his business by access to the records for the examination of instruments registered, but the court is not satisfied of his right to make an abstract to all transfers of real and personal property for the year 1886, without having an interest in the same, for the prosecution of his business, or paying any fee therefor.'" In Randolph v. State ex rel., 82 Ala. 527, 2 South. 714, 60 Am. Rep. 761, following Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299, 46 Am. Rep. 318, and Phelan v. State, 76 Ala. 49, it was held that section 698 of the Code of 1876, providing that "the records of the judge of probate's office must be free for the examination of all persons, when not in use by him," conferred the right of free examination of the records, by any person having an interest, his agent, or attorney, and the right to take memoranda or copies, but did not extend to attorneys or other persons engaged in negotiating loans on real estate, and who desired to make an abstract from the records of conveyances of the titles to all the lands in the county, for future use when required in their business. Stone, C. J., speaking for the court, said: "It is not the |