The San Francisco call., 1907-06-12
LAW PROTECTS TITLES
OF PROPERTY OWNERS
Leading Attorneys Give Out
Statement to Rebuke
Certain Concerns
ADVICE FOR CLIENTS
Measure Passed Recently
Is Supplement to the
McEnerney Act
ADVICE FOR CLIENTS

Persistent efforts on the part of a
number of title companies in this city
to create the impression that the re-
cent measure passed by the legislature
relating to notice of ownership is a
substitute for the McEnerney act have
caused the leading attorneys of the city
to unite in issuing a statement to put
property owners on their guard. Ul-
terror motives are alleged to be be-
hind the representations of the title
companies. and the difference between
the two acts is set forth in detail In
the statement the attorneys have
issued.
The measure passed at the last ses-
sion of the legislature was intended
merely as a supplement to the Nc
Enerney act 1t provides that property
owners, prior to bringing an action to
establish title under the statute OF
1906. are permitted to file with the
county recorder a notice of ownership.
making it incumbent upon every per-
son contemplating suit to establish
title to examine the record of these
notices and ascertain If any other per-
son has claimed title to the land to be
made the basis of the action.
The filing of this notice does not re-
lieve the owner of the necessity Of re-
StOllLS tnc tll1o " Ills PiOPOity W ~
tanning the decree establishing 1t pro-
vided by the McEnerney act.
Here is the statement issued by the
attorneys:
To correct seeming misapprehen-
sion by property owners as to the Nc
Enerney act in it's relation to real prop
erty titles in this city we deem it ad-
visable to make the following state
ment in relation thereto:
This act was passed for the benefit Of
owners of real property whose record
titles were destroyed by the fire Of
April, 1906. The supreme court has de-
clared the act to be constitutional and
has also declared that by the fire Of
April, 1906, the evidence of title to all
real property in this city was de-
stroyed. Therefore that matter for all
practical purposes has been finally adju-
dicated. There is no question concern
ing the act pending in the United States
court. nor do we think there is likely
to be, but should there be our opinion
is that the results already reached will
not be disturbed. There is no substf-
tute for the act, and all real properties
in the city which are not protected by
a decree under it's provisions are abso-
lutely without record title. Therefore
our advice to our clients and to real
property owners in the city generally is
that they should adopt measures neceS-
sary to have their property titles re-
stored without unnecessary delay.
Any statement contrary to the above
we regard az misleading, and If needed
would likely result in either serious loss
or great expense to the property owner.
Sullivan & Sullivan Theodore j.
Roche. Naphtaly & Friedenrich, Heller,
Powers & Ehrman, Tobin & Tobin,
Thomas, Gerstle, Frick & Beedy, Hor-
ace G. Platt j. S. Hutchinson. Myrick
& Deering, c. B. Sessions. S. C. benson,
Maddox & Loessel. Carter P. Pomeroy,
j. c. McKinstry f. H Merzbach, E. B.
Young & F. A. Denicke, Charles L..
Patton, ]. c. Bates, Edward F. Tread
well, H w. Bradley Walter II. Linforth,
Joseph Hutchinson, Frank & Mansfield.
r. F. Mogan. William A Kelly, Edwin
T. Cooper, Edward Myers, Frank J.
Hennessy, Beverley Hodghead, Charles
E. Nougues, Bishop & Hoefier, Alexan-
der D. Keyes, Garret w. McEnerney,
Morrison, Cope & Brobeck, W. T. Bag
gett, w. H. Payson, Harding & Monroe,
Mastick & Partridge, Edward A. Belch-
er, w. w. McNair, Galpin, Elkine &
Frost, Drown, Leicester & Drown, Jor-
dan, Rowe & Brann, Alexander Heyne-
man, Elliott McAllister, Edgar D. Peix-
otto, Cushing, Grant & Cushing, Frank
H. Gould, Sheldon G. Kellog, o. NJ. Col
daraeena, George T. Wright, w. F. Will
Hanson, w w. Davidson, w. II. Bar
rows & D. c. Murphy. Edward ]. Han
con, H. M. Owens, Charles B. Marks,
George Cooper.