The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-25

passed what is called the outside land act,
by which the Board of Supervisors is en-
powered, upon proper proof, TO grant the
Citv's interest to actual occupants OF those
lands. Between 1870 and 1875 the Out
side Land Committee of the Board OF SUI
perv1sors granted 95 per cent OF all these
! lands to the possessors Since that date,
manv deeds have been made and few
are still being made. While Mayor, L,
myself, signed good many.
Under the Van Ness ordinance deed
| from the City really clears the record to
the possessor deriving his rights from the
fact of possession. Under the outside
land act City deed was an absolute grant
of the property, the title originally being
in the City.
1t should be noted that before the Out
| side Land Committee began It's work the
| Supervisors ser apart from the pueblo
lands the 1000 acres now known as Golden
Gate Park. They did this by compen-
sating those in possession of large part
of it both with money and land.
| Throughout the era of adverse titles
| there was no fiercer litigation than that
which took place on the Potrero. In the
early days many pioneers settled along the
creeks of the Potrero, because they there
found a superior quality of clay for making
bricks, which were then in great demand.
They took up small claims and defended
them by force. These claims were covered
by the presumption rights of others, nota-
bly, those of Harrington and Ludlum, each
of which comprised 100 acres. The pre-
emptioners fenced in the little fellows and
made war upon them, but after intermina-.
BILE litigation and many personal en-
counters succeeded in establishing but a
small part of their claims, and the original
| squatters triumphed.
Another conflict out of which grew
great many adverse titles was had over
the farm lands granted by the Mexican
Government within the pueblo district.
The two largest ranches were the San
Miguel and Bernal, both of which were
put partially within the pueblo. The
grantees of these ranches presented their
claims to the United States Land Commits
sion, and their grants were confirmed by
| the Commissioners. More litigation fol-
lowed, the last of which has not vet SUBJ
sided. The late suit brought by the Noe
heirs raises the old question relating to the
San Miguel rancho. The fact, however,
that the statute of limitations ran only
from the patent issued on these grants
enabled their grantees to eject the SQUAT
tiers.
| The pueblo did not include all of ths
present City and County of San Francisco.
All of the land south of the line which ran
due east ana west across the peninsula
from Mission Bay was Government prop
erty. The United States granted these
| lands to the State-that is to say, all of
them which were not included in the Mex
lean grants already confirmed. For long
time the State title and the titles obtained
under unconfirmed Mexican grants in this
region battled for the supremacy. 1t is
only recently that this controversy has
| been settled.
The great source of litigation over land
titles of late years has been caused by I'M
confirmed Mexican grants all over the pc
ninsula. Two of the largest claims that
were declared to be fraudulent were the
| Pima claim, which covered portion of
the Presidio Reservation. and the Potrero
| claim. Among the others were what were
known as the Sherrebeck, Ohm and Moore
claims. The latter covered about half of
! the City, and a claim known as the De
Fitch claim covered the remainder. These
the property-owners. Nearly all of them,
however, have been completely exploded,
and except that they are made occasionally
to furnish good newspaper stories and give
the lawyers employment they are of no
| real consequence.
To properly describe the development of
land titles in San Francisco, tracing out in
all their ramitcations even the largest of
| he odu claims UOnld
large volume. There is nothing so inter-
esting, it seems to me, as such study,
and often wonder that no one has ever
written a book about it. The brief filed by
John w. Dwinelle, who was attorney for
the City before the United States Land
Commission in the pueblo title case, gives
the romantic history of the origin and de-
veIopment of the Mexican pueblo. That,
think, is the only bit of literature on the
subject. The rest is scattered through
many official publications, wherein the
story is told in a very dry and uninterest-
ing manner.
the lesson of all this history-for it has
a lesson-is simply this: Real estate is an
excellent investment, no matter where it
is located, provided the title is good NY
experience as a business man and as man.
ager oI company engaged In lnSur1ng
titles however, has taught me that money
invested in property to which the gal
title is not perfect is little better than hav-
ing it in a bank which has suspended pay
ment. A handbook in such an institution
calls for your money, but you cannot
get it. So real estate with a flaw in
the title is good to keep, but you cannot
sell it.
There are two titles to real property
the record title, which is found in the
archives of the city or county where the
property is situated, and the possessory
title, which resides only in man who has
held the land for five years and paid the
taxes upon it. 1t may be said, however,
that unless the possessory title is sup
ported by the record it is we'll nigh USE
less, for the courts may sustain the clam
ant who can show that the property has
been conveyed to him by valid deed
or by process of law. The Importance of
having a perfect record title when pur-
chasing real estate can hardly be over