5 minute read

The San Francisco Call, 13 August 1895, page 8.

Twenty-Four Million Dollar Land Suit. Spanish Heirs Lay Claim to the Entire San Miguel Rancho. Descendants of Noe. Irregularities Alleged in Noe’s Transfer to William J. Horner. Children Were Not of Age. Many Large Estates Interested and Much City Property Involved. A suit involving $24,000,000 worth of property is soon to be brought by the heirs of Jose de Jesus against the owners of land, improved and unimproved, and of divers houses and lots, in that portion of the City known and designated on the maps as San Miguel Rancho.

The complaint is now in process of compilation and copies thereof will be served on upward of 7000 defendants, including the City and County of San Francisco, the Southern Pacific Railway Company, the Stanford estate, Crocker estate, Adolph Sutro and all of the land companies that have been organized to buy and sell land in that district.

All the land comprising the San Miguel Rancho was acquired from the Governor of Alta California in 1845. Noe transferred it to W.J. Horner. The heirs claim that Senor Noe had no right under the Spanish law to make said transfer, and thereby hangs the tale. The family of Noe ranks among the oldest Spanish families in the country, and the litigation will carry with it an interest second to that of no other civil procedure now on the records of the courts.

Messrs. Gunn & Koscialowski, attorneys for plaintiffs, stated yesterday that the suit was based on the petition of Jose de Jesus Noe to the Governor of Alta California dated May 18, 1845, in which the petitioner asks that the Governor grant him one square league of land lying west of northwest of the Mission Dolores, bordering the ranches of citizens Francisco de Haro, Robert Riddle and Jose C. Bernal, agreeable to the plat which accompanied his memorial, and bounded on the west by the ocean. It was set forth by the petitioner that he had a large number of cattle and horses whose increase had been such that his prior holding was insufficient for their feed and pasturage, and further, that the petitioner’s family would receive the benefit of such grant from his excellency.

The grant was made and the Noe cattle and horses browsed over the land which was thereafterward known as the San Maguel [sic] Rancho.

In 1848 Mrs. Noe died, leaving three sons. Five years later, in 1853, Jose de Jesus Noe conveyed the rancho to William J. Horner. The heirs now contend that the conveyance was illegal. Their names are Miguel Noe, Vincente Noe and Catalina Noe. Miguel Noe is the son of Jose de Jesus Noe and the others are his grandchildren.

“Why was the transfer from Noe to Horner illegal and why has it rested so long without an attempt being made to set aside the conveyance?” was asked.

“The question is a natural one,” admitted Mr. Koscialowski, “but I think it can be answered clearly. It was illegal for the reason at the time Mrs. Noe died, under the Spanish law as it then existed the property vested in her children, and the husband had nothing more than a usufructuary interest during the minority of the children. The reason why action was not taken before is because the decisions of the courts of California have held a different view. The reason why action is taken at this time is because within the last three months it has been discovered that the courts erred as to matters of fact, that is to say they had made a mistake as to what was or what was not foreign law when Calfornia was under Mexican law. The courts in California in their construction of Mexican land grants made of property in this State prior to its admittance to the Union have almost universally held that such grants should be classified ‘Bienes Ganaciales’ (donations) made by the Government.”

The case of Panaud vs. Jones, 448 First California, was referred to by Mr. Koscialowskl [sic], in connection with others of record, as showing, according to his interpretation and that of prominent Mexican attorneys, that under such grants as the one in question the husband has no right to transfer property after the wife’s death; that it vests in the children, and cannot be disposed of until the children are of age. In the case of Panaud vs. Jones the grant was made as a reward for military services. In the case soon to be at bar the land was given for agricultural purposes, the benefits to be shared in by members of the grantee’s family.

“We claim,” continued the attorney, “that Noe senior had no right to make the deed he did to W.J. Horner, and that the present owners of the land bought it at their own risk without sufficient investigation as to the title on the principle of caveat emptor (purchasers beware).

The attorneys for the plaintiffs claim to have made a thorough research among the earliest Spanish records, and they have had translators at work for weeks here and in Mexico on the laws in force at the time California was under Mexican rule.

According to the Escriches, a ponderous Spanish law tome, the act relating to the husband’s and wife’s interest in grants similar to the one in question has been in force 300 years, and is operative to a great extent today in the settlement of estates in Mexico, Spain and even in France. In the suit to follow Spanish law will be quoted in extenso.

The property involved in the suit is roughly estimated to be worth about $24,000,000, and includes the whole of the original San Miguel Rancho. More accurately described, as is shown in the accompanying map, the boundary line extends from the junction of Valencia and Nineteenth streets along the line of the old San Jose road as far south as the county line, thence to a point near the Haight-street ball grounds and back to Nineteenth and Valencia, including the Almshouse tract, House of Refuge, Spring Valley Water Works Company’s property near the Almshouse, all of Horner’s Addition, Lake Fremont Land Association, Railroad Homestead, Park Lane tract, Clarendon Heights, Market-street Homestead, San Belle Rocho tract, San Miguel Homestead Association, and all the Mission blocks from 71 to 114, inclusive.

Papers will be filed in a few days.

Source: The San Francisco Call, 13 August 1895, page 8.