The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-09
They Are Paid for Quitclaim
Deeds to Lots in San Miguel
Rancho.
FIRST TRANSACTION RECORDED.
Money Given for Clear Title to Sun.
nyside Landowners Demur.
rers Overruled.

| The record of real estate transactions
published Saturday contained two trans
fers of land comprised in the San Miguel
rancho that show the first official recogni-
| ton of the claim set up by the Noe heirs
| to an undivided half interest in the dis
puted division of San Francisco. They
were as follows:
Sunnyside Land Company and California
Title Insurance and Trust Company to ID. w.
Grant, lots al and AZ, block 8, Sunnyslde; $40.
Miguel, Vincent and Catalina Noe and Cata-
lima Spiivalo to same, undivided half interest
in lots IL, 10, IS, II, 20, 81, "a, %, Al, AZ,
block 8, same; $40.
1t will be seen from these records that D.
W. Grant who purchased ten lots in SUM-
nyside-which lies within the San Miguel
rancho boundary lines-from the Sunny
side Land Company and the California
Title Insurance and Trust Company, paid
money to the Noe heirs for quitclaim
deed to the property. The consideration is
stated at $40, though this is merely nomi-
nal, being the popular amount given in
transfers where the parties interested de-
sire to keep the real amount secret.
Rudolph Mohr of the Sunnyside Land
Company said he had not heard of the
quitciaim deed to the Noe heirs.
''Ihey have not served notice of suit on
us or Mayor Sutro or the Golden State
Company, as they seem to go after the
small individual owners altogether. No
doubt scare of this kind can brighten
people into buying quitclaim deeds.
Answering suit is expensive, even if you
win in the end, for attorneys must be paid
TO defend your case. And so it is that
small holders would rather secure quit
claim deed for a small sum than take
chances with law suit. This is the first
of the kind. We sold the land to Mr..
Grant last July and the deed went on rec
ord yesterday. In our own case we will
fight any such claim on our property"
Attorney Koscialowski, who represents
the Noe heirs, explained chat as Mr.. Grant
was working for a salary and made his
home on the land a quitclaim deed was
given him for consideration by the heirs
of the old Spanish pioneer.
1--WE do not intend to sue poor people
who have made their homes on the land"
said he. at is only the unoccupied por-
tons that we are claiming to hold half
interest in, but the men with homes can
have clear title from US for nominal con-
sideration."
How much?"
"a few dollars enough to make it le-
gal consideration.
1--WE consider that we have Just claim
to the land and intend pressing it.. Why,
already the Superior Court of San Fran
cisco has recognized the merit in our
claims. Any one can see for himself by
looking at the Law Journal that what
l say is true. Here it is"
The attorney pointed to the LAW and
Motion" column, where, under the head
ing of Judge Sanderson's department, APP
peared the record that the demurrers of
Annie T. DunphA John Holman. Robert
Mcmillan and Armand Durrat were over
ruled by Judge Sanderson. A motion to
set aside default of w. B. Walkup was
granted.
Here is evidence that our complaint
against defendants holding land in the
San Miguel rancho is not demurrable.
These persons hold land in the San Mi
guel rancho and demurred to our general
complaint which is already we'll known,
but the court decided that demurrers
could not be considered. That settles it
that our complaint must be replied to in
the usual legal form. 1t was not noticed
by the newspapers, but then we are going
ahead quietly with Cur work and shall
keep right on. So far this is a victory"