The San Francisco call., 1896-01-23
NORTON'S DECREE
BARS NOE HEIRS,
Attorneys Say That It
Shuts Off Further
Litigation.
DEFENDANTS REJOICE.
They Are Delighted at the New
Aspect of an Annoying
Suit.
THE DECISION Is BINDING.
Now New Line May Be Followed in
Fighting the Claims of the San
Miguel Rancho.

IAII
yesterday that an cid decree not on the
legal index had been discovered in the
county Clerks office, setting at rest for all
time the Noes claim to an undivided hall
interest in the San Miguel rancho, was re-
celved with unallOyed delight by the hun
ureds OF people who had settled and made
thelr homes in the disputed territory.
This Is certainly an instance" " said one
OF those people yesterday, where the press
Is public benefactor."
Attorneys for the defendants in the cases
pending, which affect title to San Miguel
rancho lands, were unanimous in their
views. Indeed. they had but one view OF
the new situation-that it absolutely barred
Iurther proceedings on the part of the Noe
Eelrs for part ownership OF the valuable
lands within the City's boundaries.
Inc decree of Judge Norton, entered
November II. 1860, was found Tuesday in
the County Clerks office and is as follows
Now, therefore, it ordered, adjudged and
oecPeed that the title of the plaintff TO the
HooFe described premises is a good and valid
tttIe against the said defendants, ana each OF
mem ana that the said defendants and each
OF lhen, and all persons claiming by, through
t., ot uhQer ihem be forever barred of all right,
utie, estate and interest in the said premises
ana every part and parcel thereof.
EDWARD NORTON.
Judge Twelfth District Court.
:, PARSONS, for plaintiffs.
FULLY K. WISE. for defendants.
Itcame as a genuine surprise to the inter
ested parties, who saw that it placed an
altogether new aspect on the case that
gave them hope of release from the an
noyance of suit clouding in some N cas-
ure their titles of possession.
G. Whitfield Lane of Lane & Lane. who
are attorneys for the San Miguel Defense
ASSOCIATION, In an interview Yesterday as
10 the effect Of the suit OF Borie and Noe ct
al. said that until he read THE CALI. yes
terday morning he knew nothing about
the Borie suit.
The decree in that case may be of con-
siderable use TO US in this Noe litigation :"
Mr. Lane said. "If we find that the prop
erty included in IL is the same as that
which we represent, and that our clients
derived title through the plaintiff in the
BoTle SAT-, we viii amend our answers
and plead that suit IN bar as an additional
defense. OF course, this Borie case doesn't
change the Noe case at all. If it is of anv
use 1t Will simply be as an additional de-
tense. People mast be careful to answer
the Noe suit in time, and not let default
be taken against them. If the Borie suit
can be OF any use to them they must plead
II in their answers to the present suit"
When asked if he considered il as good
as case that had gone to the Supreme
Court, he said: "Oh, yes, the decision OF
lower court is just as binding as the
highest in the land, after the time for ap-
peal has passed But the fact that one
suit has been determined does not prevent
people from litigating the matter over
again.
"W e do not need the Borie case, what
ever its merits may be, to help us in this
Noe litigation. We think we can easily
defeat the claim without anything of the
sort 1t might be interesting to learn how
II occurred that the decree in this case
THE CALL publishes happened TO be
entered by consent of all parties. That
was not published with your other facts,
but Ii IS so. 1t looks as though the plain
tiff bought the defendants up. There has
been too much OF that buying off title
clouders, as | call them in this CITY.
Property-owners ought to club together
and fight the thing out on principle. 1t
would cost them less in the end and might
tend TO kill off a threatened new crop.
The San Miguel Defense Association has
some 800 members, who are going to fight
this out to the bitter end"
William II. Schooler of Miller 6,
Schooler, who represent many of the prop
erty-owners named as defendants in the
Noe suit, said: Relative to this matter,
if the decree of Judge Norton is reported
by you correctly, it seems to me that il is
absolutely conclusive, and if the plaintiffs
through the defendants in the case of
Borie against others they are most GER
tainiy precluded of all rights in the mat
ter, and unquestionably they have no
standing in court.
Il do not believe that there IS shadow
OF title on the part of the present claim
ant, because they never had any substance
TO base a suit upon. All of the decisions
of the Supreme Court of this State con-
corning the land of the San Miguel rancho
are in favor of the defendants in the suit
now pending.
III the present claimants are the de-
PENDANTS or the heirs of the defendants in
the Borie suit, they are absolutely barred
by the decree of the District Court. 1t
aids the defendants in this case in making
the defense. The discovery is one that is
very beneficial TO the property-owners Of
Noe Valley"
Mr.. Harding, searcher for the California
Title Insurance and Trust Company, and
attorney for defendants whose titles are
insured by that corporation. believed that
the old decree put an end 10 litigation in
the Noe claims.
II would not be at all surprised if that
suit may be a complete bar" he said.
''Borie seems to have had the title at that
time when be brought this snit. John NJ.
Horner bought the San Miguel ranch from
old Jose Jesus Noe, and in 1854 made
mortgage for $4,000 upon it to Cornelius
K. Garrison.
This mortgage was assigned to Samuel
Morse Jr., then foreclosed by Morse and
the property sold by the Sheriff to Theo-
dore f. Morse. Theodore f. conveyed the
ranch to Adolph E. Borie (that is as l
have it. not Adolph II. Borie), who con-
veyed it to FraRcoise Phoebe, the old
banker, February 20, 1860. The rancho
was held at different times by Phoebe, Levi
Parsons and J. B. Bayerque in undivided
interests, and also by Lester l.. Robinson,
and by them sold off to individuals and
small parcels. And now these Noe heirs
nave nave no just or right claim 10 the title.
ms sult makes the case clearer to popular
view although we know that the Noe heirs
never had shadow of legal or indeed OF
any claim to the property"