1870-08-22: Bolado/Arques vs. Anzar/MacDougall Suit: 1848 Anzar/Larios Partition Declared Invalid

Monday, August 22, 1870 – Bolado/Arques vs. Anzar et. al. (Frederick A. MacDougall) lawsuit: findings filed:

1st: in the year 1834 there were two tracts of unclaimed lands, the Quien Sabe and Santa Ana, unlimited in quantity.

(NOTE: There are 40 historical points entered here that have been entered as posts in historical order in this record; they are not duplicated in this post. Look for category: Bolado/Arques Suit.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

That as the land granted to Juan Miguel Anzar and Manuel Salvador Larios had not been segregated from the public domain and the external boundaries had not been fixed by the government of Mexico, the said Anzar & Larios could not make a partition of same as attempted by them in 1848 and that all of their proceedings for a partition before the land granted was finally located by the Mexican Government or its successor, the United States, were null and void and not binding either at law or in equity;

Plaintiffs (Bolado & Arques) and defendants (Anzar et. al., & MacDougall) are jointly seized in fee simple of said whole of said premesis described in said letters patent and hold possessions and enjoy the same as tenants in common;

That the plaintiffs as among themselves are seized in fee of said one undivided 1/2 part of all of said premises and hold the same according to their respective rights and interests therein but which rights and interests as between them are not now determined.

That the said Defendants as among themselves are seized in fee of the one undivided half &c &c.

That said Plaintiffs as among themselves are entitled to have a half part of said premises quantity and quality relatively considered, set apart to them in severalty and that said Defendant as among themselves are entitled to have a half &c;

That commissioners should be appointed to make partition; that such commissioners should, if the same can be equitably done, set apart to Plaintiffs' and Defendant's lands embracing their respective improvements; let an interlocutory decree be drawn accordingly.

s, S. B. McKee, District Judge.

v.2 p.255

NOTE: Samuel Bell McKee served as a Justice of the California Supreme Court from 1880 – 1887.

http://www.cschs.org/02_history/02_c.html 

See also: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_rlg4413/is_CUBU0017/ai_n15473235 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: