1870-10-04: Final Partition Decree: SW 24,411 Acres to Bolado/Arques, NE 24,411 Acres to MacDougall & Anzar Heirs

Tuesday, October 4, 1870 – Report of commissioners filed.

LARGER Final partition decree:

F. L. Ripley, surveyor, made Final Partition of Santa Ana and Quien Sabe Ranchos:

Bolado and Arques got Lot 1: Southwestern half 24,411.30 Ac,

MacDougall and Anzar heirs got Lot 2: Northeastern half 24,411.30 Ac

expenses of survey and partition $761.25

v. 2 p. 263 to 265.

Advertisements

1870-09-12: Partition Commission Issued by Court.

September 12, 1870 – Partition Commission issued.

Source: suit decree

v2 p. 262

1870-09-08 – Decree Filed: Rancho Santa Ana/Quien Sabe Partition to be done by Johnson, Duncan, and de la Vega

Thursday, September 8, 1870 – Interlocutory decree filed and entered: partition to be done by William S. Johnson, Sampson Duncan, and Francisco de la Vega who are appointed commissioners and empowered to hire a surveyor.

V2 p. 258

Source: suit decree.

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 

1870-04-07: Bolado/Arques vs. MacDougall Suit: Plaintiffs have 10 days after filing to give notice of new trial.

April 4, 1870 – Suit: stipulation filed that plaintiffs have 10 days after notice of filing finding of fact to give notice of new trial. (etc.)

1869-08-04: Bolado/Arques Suit vs. MacDougall (Anzar et. al): Suit: answers to cross complaint filed

Wednesday, August 4, 1869: Suit: answers to cross complaint filed.

1869-07-26: MacDougall (Anzar et. al) Answer Bolado/Arques’ Suit Re: Partition

Monday, July 26, 1869 – Suit: Frederick A. MacDougall's (Anzar et. al.) answer and cross complaint:

That so much of plaintiff's (Joaquin Bolado & José G. Arques) prayer seeks to obtain decree of this court declaring the pretended partition a good and valid partition; or declaring plaintiffs to be exclusive owners of that part of the lands called Santa Ana; or as seems to establish the pretended dividing line set up in plaintiff's complaints, or compelling these defendants to make conveyances and assurances of title to plaintiffs to be denied.

MacDougall requests court to decree that MacDougall has an undivided 12th of lands granted by letters patent, and the said defendants Juan Francisco Anzar, Anatolio Anzar & Policronio Anzar each own 5 undivided 36ths; and said plaintiffs as among themselves to be the owners of one undivided half part thereof, and that the land be divided in an equitable and just manner.

v.2 p.247

1868-12-28: Bolado/Arques Suit vs. MacDougall et. al.: Summons Filed in Los Angeles County

December 28, 1868 – Joaquin Bolado & José G. Arques vs. Frederick A. MacDougall et. al; Summons filed with proof of service by sheriff's certificate that he delivered and left with Frederick A. MacDougall in the County of Los Angeles on the 28th day of November 1868 a copy for himself and for each of the 3 minors.

1868-12-09: Bolado/Arques vs. MacDougall et al.: Summons Returned, Defendants Not In County.

December 9, 1868 – Bolado Arques vs. MacDougall et al.  Summons returned not served. Sheriff of Monterey stating defendants not in this county.

Published in: on December 9, 1868 at 10:26 am  Leave a Comment  

1868-11-14: Bolado/Arques vs. MacDougall et. al: Summons Issued

Bolado Arques vs MacDougall et al. (Anzar heirs). Summons issued.

Published in: on November 14, 1868 at 10:16 am  Leave a Comment  

1868-11-14: Joaquin Bolado and José G. Arques sue Anzar et. al. over Partition of 1848

Saturday, November 14, 1868 – Joaquin Bolado and José G. Arques sue Anzar et. al.

Describes history and borders, describing partition, how the patent was awarded, and that the partition previously made was fair and just, but now the defendants (the Anzars) now ignore the partition.

Bolado and Arques claim that if the partition is not valid, then they are the owners of one undivided half of all lands patented, and the defendant MacDougall is the owner of one undivided 12th part and minors Juan Francisco Anzar, Anatolio Anzar and Policronio de Guadalupe Anzar are each the owner of 5 undivided 36th parts thereof.

That the defendant Anzars contend that the patent vested in each of the defendants the title to one undivided 5th part and Manuel Larios and his successors the remaining 1/5th part.

That the patent is a cloud upon plaintiffs' title, that they are ready and willing to convey to defendants all interest in the Quien Sabe.

Prays decree that Patent award one half for the benefit of defendants, half for Larios and successors.

Attorneys Peckham and Payne.

v. 2 p 227-244.

Bolado/Arques suit claimed that the Patent didn't declare the interest that each of the patentees was to take, but granted severally to all.

But under said partition, Manuel Larios and his successors (Bolado & Arques) were and are the owners of the Santa Ana, and Defendants (Anzar et. al.) were and are the owners of the Quien Sabe

That the partition is just, and equal and valid in equity; that defendants give out and pretended that the same was not a valid partition and now refuse to recognize the same.

v.2 p. 242

If the partition is not valid, Bolado/Arques own an undivided half of all lands patented; that MacDougall owns one undivided 12/th, the 3 Anzar heirs each own 5 undivided 36ths parts thereof.

Defendants contend that the patent vested in each of the Defendants the title to one undivided 5th part and Larios and his successors the remaining 1/5th part.

That the patent is a cloud upon Plaintiff's title; that they are ready and willing to convey all interest in Quien sabe.

v.2 p.243

Prays decree that Patent award one half for the benefit of Defendants (Bolado/Arques) and half for the benefit of Manual Larios and his successors.

That Defendants shall execute conveyances that vest in Plaintiffs a full and complete title to half of all the right, title and interest which passed from the Government of the United States to the grantees by said letters patent.

That the court decree that the instrument of 2/13/1848 was sufficient partition and the Plaintiffs will be said to be the owners in severalty of Santa Ana if the partition is true.

1860-05-01: President James Buchanan issues patent for Rancho Santa Ana y Quien Sabe

Tuesday, May 1, 1860 – President James Buchanan in Washington issues United States patent for the Rancho Santa Ana y Quien Sabe grant. The patent was issued for the combined ranch — and it described its boundaries — to Manuel Larios et. al (including the heirs of Juan Miguel Anzar: Frederick A. MacDougall, Anatolio Anzar, Juan Francisco Anzar and Policronio Anzar).

The grant was originally issued Monday, April 8, 1839 by Governor of Alta California Juan B. Alvarado to claimants Manuel Larios and Juan Miguel Anzar.

California State Map ID number: MC 4:4-574 Grant number: 237.

Book A Patents p 55-62.

“To all whom these presents shall come: Greeting”

Book 1 pp. 9-23

NOTE FROM THE BOLADO/ARQUES SUIT, V2 P. 253: THAT THE LANDS GRANTED INCLUDE ONLY A PART OF THE LANDS PETITIONED FOR, AND A PART ONLY OF THAT DESCRIBED IN THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT.

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/rancho.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan

1859-05-03: Survey of Divided Santa Ana and Quien Sabe Ranches approved

Tuesday, May 3, 1859 – Survey of the divided ranches for the United States excluded an equal amount of land from both Santa Ana and Quien Sabe ranches; the survey was finally approved by the Surveyor General and the lands embraced in the survey are the same as in the Patent.

Abstract v.2 p. 253

That the area of Rancho Santa Anita north of said division line is 31,000 Acres; that the area of Rancho Quien Sabe is 17822.60 Acres.

That Rancho Santa Ana contains more agricultural lands than Rancho Quien Sabe and is of more easy access. The pastoral lands are of equal value acre for acre, but from 1851 to 1865 Quien Sabe was the best cattle rancho because it was easier to keep cattle in it and they could range from the mountains which divides from Santa Ana as far as the San Joaquin River.

Bolado/Arques suit v2 p.254.- Sept 8, 1870 (?)

1856-12-12: Court substitutes MacDougall a party claimant instead of Maria A. Castro

An order was made by United States District Court substituting Frederick A. MacDougall a party claimant instead of Maria A. Castro and reviving said claim in the name of said heirs. 

Source: suit, v2. p.252

A decree of the said district court on said appeal affirming the decree of the commissioners was made. 

That said decree became final, survey was made of 48,822 60/100 acres as much of the public land was excluded from the exterior limits of the said Quien Sabe side as from those of the said Santa Ana grant. 

That the survey was finally approved by the surveyor general on the 3rd of May 1859 and the lands embraced in the survey are the same as in Patent. 

The decision to divide the combined Santa Ana and Quien Sabe as undivided halves to Anzar and Larios was appealed to US District Court in Southern District of California, undetermined until 12/12/1856.

That day, since Maria had died 5/30/1855, MacDougall and Anzar heirs became party claimant in place of Maria Antonia Castro de Anzar de MacDougall.

Abstract, v.2 p. 238-9, 252

That the quantity of lands granted was not ascertained until 12 December 1856 where the final decree of said United States District Court was made.

Bolado/Arques suit, v2. p.249-50   

1855: Manuel Larios bought surveyor Francisco Serrano’s partition map

Larios bought surveyor Francisco Serrano's map of the partition of Rancho Santa Ana y Quien Sabe 3 or 4 years after death of JM Anzar in 1852.

Bolado/Arques suit.

Published in: on January 1, 1855 at 12:30 am  Leave a Comment  

1854-11-07: Bolado/Arques suit: Board of Land Commissioners: Anzar heirs substituted as claimants

Tuesday, November 7, 1854: Per the Joaquin Bolado/JG Arques suit:

BEFORE THIS DATE Juan Miguel Anzar's will entered probate

Abstract: v.2 p.237, 252 (it was documented as actually happening 2/3/1853 or 2/23 – Abstract v.2 p. 171)

ON THIS DATE, devisees were substituted as claimants by the Board of Land Commissioners with Manuel Larios – 11/7/1854:

The Board of Land Commissioners:

The joint Larios/Anzar claim (Rancho Santa Ana y Quien Sabe) was bounded: commencing at the northwest corner of a place called El Lomito del Corral Viejo (lomito means little hill) and running thence easterly towards the Cañada (gorge) des Pecachos in the line of the place called San Joaquin (Later entries say Rancho San Felipe; Abstact v.2 p.240) to the base of the range of the mountain called Quien Sabe, thence along the base of said mountains southerly to the Arroyo de Joaquin Soto, thence down said arroyo to its junction with the stream called Arroyo del Puerto del Rosario. Thence down said stream to a crossing of wagon Road to San Juan and thence by a place called Loma de en Media (?) to the place of beginning.

And said land was confirmed as one undivided half to Larios and the other undivided half to the Anzar heirs. (The 1848 Partition was disregarded). Abstract v.2 p. 238

Appeal was made to the District Court of the US in the Southern District, it was pending and undecided until 12/12/1856.

Abstract v.2 p. 238-9

1853-10-07: Per Bolado/Arques suit: Juan Miguel Anzar died.

Juan Miguel Anzar died testate leaving devisees.

(this is not correct; he actually died October 29, 1852 – but it was claimed per Bolado/Arques suit)

Abstract v2 p. 252