The San Francisco call., 1896-09-09
AGAINST THE NOE HEIRS,
Judge Sanderson Decides the
Long Contested
Case.
Suit Involving the Validity of Titles
to Land Worth Many
Millions.

The long-contested suit of the Noe
heirs, involving the validity of titles to a
large amou nj of land in the Mission, val
ued up in the millions, was decided yes
terday by Judge SaEderson against the
Noe heirs.
The suit was brought with the purpose
of quieting title to an undivided half of
the Miguel rancho, containing something
above 1000 acres, granted to Jose de Jesus
Noe by Governor Pho Pico in 1916. The
suit was brought by the heirs of Noes
wife, upon the ground that the wife had a
community interest.
The question involved was based on this
point-whether the grant to the husband
vested in his wife a community interest.
The court decided against the plaintiff
heirs and il favor of the defendants, who
number over 1000. Judge Sarderson in
the opinion filed says:
The land in question here was given out
right by the Mexican Government to Noe in
some eight years later he sold it TO Horner for
$4,000, it appears, and now, half century
later. the property, largely covered by i'm
provements, is said by counsel to be worth up
ward of $50, 100000. Upon ii are founded the
homes and probably the entire fortunes OF
thousands of the inhabitants of this City, who
nave already llVeu Inere IN perfect legal Sc
curity as to their titles which have been un-
questioned for nearly, If not quite, thirty years
last past.
At this late day an assault of this character
upon these titles, based on aquestion and con-
tention OF law long since definitely fixed and
settled by our courts, must strike the ordinary
mind as wholly without justification and
prompt the wish and show the necessity Tor
some remedy at the HANDS of our legislators
whereby long-esta blished owners of property
such as the numerous defendants in this ac-
tion may, if possible, be protected in some
present one against them to determine ques-
ton long since laid at rest, without being com
PEELED to undergo the expense and annoyance
of defending an unfounded action in order TO
keep their titles unclouded.
There is no way under the present law, so
far as am advised, by which the good faith of
the plaintiffs in such suits can be tested or
guaranteed prior to trial, but this 1 believe
can be effected by proper law in that behalf
The necessity for such a remedy could easily
be more forcibly illustrated, in my opinion,
than Dy the present suit.
1t may be added that the point heretofore
stated is not the sole ground on which an
action like this and based upon sim liar facts
would be defeated in this State.
Our Supreme Court has held that where
property, as a matter OF law, becomes COM
munity property, as is claimed by plaintiffs
the husband to dispose OF the same in the
absence of fraud, and likewise to sell and dis
pose of the entire community property in
order to pay community debts; and where tn e
property was sold, as here, for valuable con-
sideration 1t would be presumed that the hus-
band disposed of the property for that pur-
pose and a valid title TO the whole property
would pass thereby.
There were over 1000 defendants In this
suit