The San Francisco call., 1899-01-26
A Big Land Suit Now
in the Courts.
LIKE THE NOE VALLEY CLAIMS
SUITS WILL BE DISMISSED FOR
A CONSIDERATION.
A Cloud Now Hangs Over the Deeds
of Hundreds of Holders of
Small Pieces of Real
Estate.

A case has recently cropped UP in
the Superior Court which not only in
wolves thousands of dollars in small
holdings, but has created small panic
among real estate men and hundreds of
people who own building lots on the old
Rancho Rincon de las Salinas or Bernal
Rancho
This piece of land, which lies along
the old San Jose road. was years ago
granted by the old Mexican Governor.
After several changes it became the
property of Joseph Mora Moss, Harvey
S. Brown, Francois L. A. Phoebe, Henry
A. Cobb and John Francis Cobb.
On October 80, 1860, they sold the
piece of land, amounting to some 200
acres, to the Islais and Salinas Water
Company, a corporation formed to pur-
chase it.
The land thus acquired was divided
into building lots and disposed of.
The first record of sale is dated Janu-
ary 2, 1861, and states that a certain
plat Of land was sold to Henry B. Pot
ter and Abel Wade. The deed bears
the signature, "Islais and Salinas
Water Company, by F. L. A. Pioche,
II. A. Cobb and c. de Boom, trustees" -
and hereby hangs the tale.
There was no common seal of the
company and there are no records ex-
tant which show that the three gentle
men aforementioned ever were trustees
or had the right to sell the land. They
simply signed and used their individual
seals.
Hundreds of people bought lots and
q tod tIn
so-called trustees" These deeds have
held without contest for the past thirty
years or more, but somebody has at
last found loophole in these deeds.
After passing through various hands
one Of the deeds came into the hands
of Mary Barney. She found her lot al
ready in the possession of John Pforr.
She entered suit for possession in the
Superior Court, but lost, the court hold
ing that, for various reasons, the title
from the three trustees was not valid
The case was carried to the Supreme
Court, which upheld the decision of
the lower court. In his opinion Judge
| Searles said:
Proof was made that the CORPORA
| ton grantor had three trustees. but
! there was no proof that the parties
! signing the deed were such trustees.
nor was there any authority shown
| from the corporation to any one to
make the sale or to convey the land,
| nor was there any resolution ratifying
! such conveyance"
This was the beginning of the pres
ent suit, which is simply suit against
all who hold deeds signed blythe three
trustees, instituted by two unknown
parties, who claim to be the two sur
vivors of the old corporation. They
claim that there is no official record of
the three trustees who signed the orig
inal deeds, that, according to the Bar
ney-Pforr decision, the deeds are value
less, and accordingly sue for the prop
erty.
Among the holders are the California
Title Insurance and Trust Company,
the Hibernia Bank and other large con-
Germs, all of which have for years been
passing on these titles.
1t is stated that the complainants in
the case have agreed to settle up and
give a clear title to any defendant who
will pay them per cent of the present
assessed valuation of their property
and state that some have already paid
up.
Others look upon it as a scheme and
are determined to fight the case to
finish. Among these is NJ. Salomon. He
placed his individual case in an attor-
ney's hands, but the attorney finds him
self at sea to a certain extent.
He characterizes the whole thing as
a scheme and, owing to the peculiar
attitude of the plaintiffs, will find 1t
difficult to bring his client out on top.
1.-The plaintiffs he says, have told US
that if we file an answer they will i'm
mediately dismiss the case. We can
have it dismissed readily ourselves, in
| fact, by pleading the statute of limita
| tions, but this is not what we want. If
we make any such plea, the prosecu
ton will move for the dismissal of the
| o1 ha Of and will for
ever remain under a cloud. Their pos
! session by the present owners may
never be disputed, but should they be
sold, the case would be revived again.
What we want to do is to force a
trial of the case. If this can be done,
and we think it can, we will prove
negative possession or that the water
company has neither been in possession
of nor paid taxes on the lands for the
past five years, and this will give us a
clear title. There are many peculiar
things regarding this case. For in
stance, the complaint was never sworn
to, and 1t is not alleged that the COM
plainant Is a corporation nor are the
names of the complainants given. This
may prevent us from filing a cross COM
plaint, but we will, in our answer ask
for relief and 1 think we have a suffi-
ciently clear case to enable US to get
a quiet title If the thing is ever brought
to trial. All we want is fair trial
and we will prove that the water COM
pany has really no title"
The whole case promises to form one
of the most interesting ones involving
laid titles that has been heard in the
courts since the famous Noe Valley
suits and may end in the same way.
1t is strongly limited that there is a
combination back of the whole thing
and the suits were instituted to make
up for the depression in real estate and
fill the pockets of certain shrewd specu-
lators and lawyers.