The degree of intelligence and skill required of a man by law, depends much upon his calling. A professional man must be specially educated or fitted for the duties of his vocation, and in addition to the requisite technical knowledge must have reasonable skill in its application. So the understanding implied from persons engaged in the business of searching the public records, examining titles to real property, and making abstracts thereof for compensation is, that they are possessed of the requisite knowledge and skill and will exercise due and ordinary care in the performance of their duties.3 For a failure in either of these respects, resulting in damages, the party injured is entitled to recover.4 Nor can the examiner limit his liability by a clause in the certificate appended to the abstract without specifically calling his client's attention to it.5 It does not seem, however, that the employment involves any elements of guaranty or indemnity further than that raised by the undertaking to bring to the discharge of the duty reasonable skill and diligence.6 That is, he should make a full and true search; should examine the record of every matter shown upon his own or the public indices which affects the land in question; should accurately digest or abstract every instrument or other matter so found, and should supplement his search by an explicit statement or certificate of all matters covered by it.

But to fix the liability of the examiner there must, as a rule, be privity of contract with the injured party, for he can be held answerable for his errors only to the person who has employed him, and where, in the absence of fraud, collusion, or falsehood, the examiner has made an erroneous certificate, upon the strength of which a third person has loaned and lost money, or suffered other injury, no liability will attach, notwithstanding the fact that the money was advanced on the assurances of the abstract, and to the person who caused the same to be made.7 On the other hand, the owner of land seldom incurs the expense of procuring an abstract of title except for the purpose of thereby furnishing information to some third person who is to be influenced by the information thus provided. Hence, it is contended, if the abstract maker shall in all cases be held responsible only to the person under whose employment he performs the service, it is manifest that the loss, if any, occasioned thereby, must, in many cases, be without remedy. Acting upon this line of reasoning, we may observe a tendency in some of the cases to extend the abstracter's liability and to give to any one, who in good faith relies upon the statements of the abstract, a remedy against him for any loss that may have resulted from his errors or omissions.8 The general rule, however, and that sustained by the weight of authority, is as first stated, and in most of the cases that seem to militate against it there are special circumstances tending to create privity, or such other relation as gives to the injured third party a right of redress.9

3 Chase vs. Heaney, 70 111., 268;

Lattin vs. Gillette, 95 Cal., 317. 4 Security Co. vs. Longacre, 56

Neb., 469; Clark vs. Marshall,

34 Mo., 429.

5 Chase vs. Heaney, 70 111., 268. 6 Dundee Mfg. Co. vs. Hughes, 20

Fed. Rep., 39; Schade vs.

Gehner, 133 Mo., 252.

It has further been held, that the examiner is under no obligation to show anything not arising within the dates of his search, even though it be at the time a valid and subsisting lien upon the land; nor is he bound to inquire or state whether the title vested in any grantee during the period covered by his examination was affected by any prior conveyance, or any estoppel growing out of any covenants therein.10

With respect to this branch of our subject, a distinction must further be kept in mind between persons engaged in the business of compiling abstracts as an ordinary occupation and public officers who furnish same as a part of their official duty. Abstracts are frequently made by recorders, clerks, and protho-notaries, and in some states their liability 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. But where an officer is not bound to make searches of the records of his office his liability would seem to be measured by the same rules that apply to abstracters generally.

7 Savings Bank vs. Ward, 100 U.

S., 195; Talpey vs. Wright, 61 Ark., 275.

8 Dickie vs. Abstract Co., 89 Term., 431.

9 Slewers vs. Commonwealth, 87

Pa. St., 15. 10 Wakefield vs. Chowen, 26 Minn., 379.