1873-07-14: Joaquin R. Arques Quitclaims His 1/3 Interest in Rancho Santa Ana Given to His Wife Ellen Arques

Monday, July 14, 1873 – Joaquin R. Arques to his wife Ellen Arques for $5.00 quitclaims his undivided 1/3 interest in 7,680 acres of Rancho Santa Ana

Deeds N p.340, 

v.2 p.311.

It refers to the deed of partition of June 8, 1869 between Bolado and Arques.

Recorded 3:30 PM Monday, July 14, 1873 

Advertisements

1873-06-03: Joaquin R. Arques Gives All of His Share in Rancho Santa Ana and More to His Wife Ellen G. Arques

June 3, 1873 – Joaquin R. Arques to Ellen G. Arques, his wife: deed; consideration of natural love and affection and other valuable consideration: doth give and grant all my right title interest and estate in and to those certain lots, pieces or parcels of land &c being an undivided 1/3 interest to 7,680 acres of land and portion of Rancho Santa Ana and for a more particular description of the lands hereby intended to be conveyed reference is made to a deed of partition dated June 8, 1869 made between Joaquin Bolado and José G. Arques and also to a deed dated November 11, 1871 from Joaquin Bolado to the said José G. Arques.

v.2 p. 309.

Libr N deeds 204.

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 

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.

1869-06-08: Bolado and Arques sign Partition Deed

Tuesday, June 8 1869 – PARTITION DEED of PART OF RANCH: José G. Arques of Monterey County to Joaquin Bolado of San Francisco:

They are tenants in common of equal parts; now, a complex description of a PARTITION OF RANCH: 8887.87 acres to Bolado, 7407.04 to Arques

Deeds Book I p. 8

v.1 p.163

Recorded 9AM, Thursday July 15, 1869.

1864-04-18: Patent: Combined Rancho Santa Ana y Quien Sabe: Manuel Larios et. al received final signature

April 18, 1864: Patent: Combined Ranch: Manuel Larios et. al received final signature

v.1 p.23

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  

1848-02-13: Partition of Santa Ana y Quien Sabe Attempted

Partition was attempted: Quien Sabe for Anzar, Santa Ana for Larios.

Abstract v.2 p. 231 – per Bolado/Arques suit of 1869.

Executed in San Juan Bautista.

Agreements Book A, p. 63 and 67 (both in Spanish)

NOTE: v. 1 p.167 says it was Feb. 3, not 13th.

The dividing Line between Santa Ana and Quien Sabe was supposed to be:

v.2 p.230: From the creek called Arroyo del Pecacho running along the summit of the mountains or ridge which separated the two places in all the meandering of the said ridge passing by the place called Aguage (watering place?) del Clerigo, leaving in the side of Juan Anzar the place called Llanitos and there turning and running to a point called Puerto del Rosario.

1839-04-09: US District Court’s Interpretation of Grant of Santa Ana y Quien Sabe

A grant was made by the governor to Juan Miguel Anzar and Manuel Larios which vested in them jointly and in equal shares an inchoate and imperfect but equitable title in and to the lands called Santa Ana and Quien Sabe.

That said grant referred to said maps mentioned in finding No 14 but the grant does not otherwise specify either the extent or boundaries of the said Ranchos or either of them.

That the grant contains the usual conditions and reservations the surplus after making the juridicial measurement therein provided to be made to the nation and if any of the conditions be contravened that said lands may be denounced by another.

That said lands were granted as one tract.

That no juridicial possession was ever given or survey made until the making and final approval of the United States Survey hereinafter mentioned.

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.

Abstract, v2. p.249-50