16
necessary that it shall be free from reasonable doubt; in other words, that a purchaser is not entitled to demand a title absolutely free from every possible suspicion. Cummings v Dolan, 52 Wash. 496, 100 P. 989 (1909). The record being spoken of here is the title abstract and all documentary evidence pertaining to it. “It is an axiom of hornbook law that a purchaser has notice only of recorded instruments that are within his ‘chain of title’.” 1 R. Patton & C. Patton, Patton on Land Title, Section 69, at 230-33.	(2nd ed 1957); Sabo v Horvath, 559 P. 2d 1038, 1043 (Ak. 1976). Title insurance then guarantees that a title is marketable, not absolutely free from doubt.

Thus, under the color or title system used most often in this country today, no individual operating under this type of title system has the absolute or allodial title. All that is really necessary to have a valid title is to have a relatively clean abstract with a recognizable color of title as the operative marketable title within the chain of title. It therefore becomes necessarily difficult, if not impossible after a number of years, considering the inevitable contingencies that must arise and the title disputes that will occur, to ever properly guarantee an absolute title. This is not necessarily the fault of the seller, but it is the fault of the legal and real estate systems for allowing such a diluted form of title to be controlling in an area where it is imperative to have the absolute title. In order to correct this problem, it is important to return to those documents

17
the early leaders of the nation created to properly ensure that property remained one of the inalienable rights that the newly established sovereign freeholders could rely on to always exist. This correction must be in the form of restricting or perhaps eliminating the widespread use of a marketable title and returning to the absolute title.

Other problems have developed because of the use of a color of title system for the conveyance of land. These problems arise in the area of terminology that succeed in only confusing and clouding the title to an even greater extent than merely using terms like marketability, salability or merchantability. When a person must also determine whether a title is complete, perfect, good and clear, or whether it is a bad, defective, imperfect and doubtful, there is an obvious possibility of destroying a chain of title because of an inability to recognize what is acceptable to a reasonable purchaser.

A complete title means that a person has the possession, right of possession and the right of property. Dingey v Paxton, 60 Miss. 1038 (1883) and Ehle v Quackenboss, 6 Hill (N.Y.) 537 (1844). A perfect title is exactly the same as a complete title, Donovan v Pitcher, 53 Ala. 411 (1875) and Converse v Kellogg, 7 Barb. (N.Y.) 590 (1850); and each simply means the type of title a well-informed, reasonable and prudent person would be willing to accept when paying full value for the property. Birge v Bock, 44 Mo.

18
App. 69 (1890). In other words, a complete or perfect title is in reality a marketable or merchantable title, and is usually represented by a color of title.

A good title does not necessarily mean one perfect of record but consists of one which is both of rightful ownership and rightful possession of the property. Bloch v Ryan, 4 App. Cas. 283 (1894). It means a title free from litigation, palpable defects and grave doubts consisting of both legal and equitable titles and fairly deducible of record. Reynolds v Borel, 86 Cal. 538, 25 p. 67 (1890). “A good title means not merely a title valid in fact, but a marketable title, which can again be sold to a reasonable purchaser or mortgaged to a person of reasonable prudence as security for a loan of money.” Moore v Williams, 115 N.Y. 586, 22 N.E. 253 (1889). A clear title means there are no encumbrances on the land, Roberts v Bassett, 105 Mass. 409 (1870). Thus, when contracting to convey land, the use of the phrase “good and clear title” is surplusage, since the terms good title and clear title are in fact synonymous. Oakley v Cook, 41 N.J. Eq. 350, 7 A.2d 495 (1886). Therefore, the words good title and clear title, just like the words complete title and perfect title, describe nothing more than a marketable title or merchantable title, and as stated above, each can and almost always is represented in a transaction by a color of title. None of these types of title purports to be the absolute, or allodial title, and none of them are that type of title. None of these actually claims to be a fee simple absolute,

19
and since these types of titles are almost always represented by a color of title, none represents that it passes the actual title. Each one does state that it passes what can be described as a title good enough to avoid the necessity of litigation to determine who actually has the title. If such litigation to determine titles is necessary, then the title has crossed the boundaries of usefulness and entered a different category of title descriptions and names.

This new category consists of titles which are bad, defective, imperfect or doubtful. A bad title conveys no property to the purchaser of the estates. Heller v Cohen, 15 Misc. 378, 36 N.Y.S. 668 (1895). A title is defective when the party claiming to own the land has not the whole title, but some other person has title to a part or portion of it. Such a title is the same as no title whatsoever. Place v People, 192 Ill. 160, 61 N.E. 354 (1901); See also Cospertini v Oppermann, 76 Cal. 181, 18 P. 256 (1888). An imperfect title is one where something remains to be done by the granting power to pass the title to the land, Raschel v Perez, 7 Tex. 348 (1851); and a doubtful title is also one which conveys no property to the purchaser of the estate. Heller v Cohen, 15 Misc. 378, 36 N.Y.S. 668 (1895). Every title is described as doubtful which invites or exposes the party holding it to litigation. Herman v Somers, 158 PA.St. 424, 27 A. 1050 (1893). Each of these types of titles describes exactly the same idea stated in many different ways, that because of some problem, defect, or question surrounding the title, no title can be conveyed, since no title

20
exists. Yet in all of these situations some type of color of title was used as the operative instrument. What then makes one color of title complete, good or clear in one situation, and in another situation the same type of color of title could be described as bad, defective, imperfect or doubtful? What is necessary to make what might otherwise be a doubtful title, a good title, is the belief of others in the community, whether or not properly justified, that the title is a good one which they would be willing to purchase. Moore v Williams, 115 N. Y. 586, 22 N.E. 253 (1889). The methods presently used to determine whether a title or color of title is good enough to not be doubtful, are the other two-thirds of the three possible requirements for the conveyance of a good or complete (marketable) title.

These two methods of properly ensuring that a title is a good or complete title are title abstracts, the complete documentary evidence of title, and title insurance. The legal title to land, based on a color of title, is made up of a series of documents required to be executed with the solemnities prescribed by law, and of facts not evidenced by documents, which show the claimant a person to whom the law gives the estate. Documentary evidences of title consist of voluntary- grants by the sovereign, deeds if conveyances and wills by individuals, conveyances by statutory or judicial permission, deeds made in connection with the sale of land for delinquent taxes, proceedings under the power of eminent domain, and deeds executed by ministerial or fiduciary officers.

21
These documentary evidences are represented by the land patent and the colors of title. 1 G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Prooerty, pp. 99-100 (5th ed. 1980). These instruments, relied upon to evidence the title, coupled with the outward assertive acts that import dominion, must be used by the abstractor in compiling the abstract, and the attorney must examine to determine the true status of the title. Id. The abstract is the recorded history of the land and the various types of titles, mortgages and other liens, claims and interests that have been placed on the property. The abstract can determine the number of times the patent has been redeclared, who owns the mineral rights, what color of title is operable at any particular point in time, and what lien holder is in first position, but it does not convey or even attempt to convey any form of the title itself. As Thompson, supra has stated, it is necessary when operating with colors of titles to have an abstract to determine the status of the operable title and determine whether that title is good or doubtful. Id. at 101. If the title is deemed good after this lengthy process, then the property may be transferred without doing anything more, since it is assumed that the seller was the owner of the property.. This is not to say emphatically that the seller is the paramount or absolute owner. This does not even completely guarantee that he is the owner of the land against any adverse claimants. It is not even that difficult to claim that the title holder has a good title due to the leniency and attitude now evidenced by the judicial authorities toward maintaining a stable

22
and uniform system of land ownership, whether or not that ownership is justified. This however, does not explain the purpose and goal of a title abstract.

An abstract that has been properly brought up simply states that it is presumed the seller is the owner of the land, making the title marketable, and guaranteeing that he has a good title to sell. This is all an abstract can legally do since it is not the title itself and it does not state the owner has an absolute title. Therefore, the abstract can not guarantee unquestionably that the title is held by the owner. All of this rhetoric is necessary if the title is good; if there is some question concerning the title without making it defective, then the owner must turn to the last of the three alternatives to help pass a good title, Title Insurance. G. Thompson, Title to Real Prooert~ Preparation and Examination of Abstracts, Ch. III, Section 79, pp. 99—100 (1919).

Title Insurance is issued by title insurance companies to ensure the validity of the title against any defects, against any encumbrances affecting the designated property, and to protect the purchaser against any losses he sustains from the subsequent determination that his title is actually unmarketable. Id. at 100.  Title Insurance extends to any defects of title. Id. It protects against the existence of any encumbrances, provided only that any judgments adverse to the title shall be pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Id. It is not even necessary that a defect

23
actually exist when the insurance policy was issued, it is simply necessary that there exists at the time of issuance of the policy and inchoate or potential defect which is rendered operative and substantial by the happening of some subsequent event. Since all one normally has is a color of title, the longer a title traverses history, the greater the possibility that the title will become defective. The greater the need for insurance simply to keep the title marketable, the easier it is to determine that the title possessed is not the true, paramount and absolute title. If a person had the paramount title, there would be no need for title insurance, though an abstract might be useful for record keeping and historical purposes. Title insurance, and abstract record keeping are useful primarily because of extensive reliance on colors of title as the operative title for a piece of property.

This then supplies the necessary information concerning colors of title, title abstracts, and title insurance. This does not describe the relationship between the landowner and the government. As was stated in the introduction, in feudal England, the King has the power, right and authority to take a person’s land away from him, if and when the King felt it necessary. The question is whether most of the American system of land ownership and titles is in reality any different and whether therefore the American-based system of ownership, is in reality nothing more than a feudal system of land ownership.