1a

Report on Abstract
of
Title to the Rancho San Jose de Buenos Ayres

It appears from the patent that this Rancho was granted to Maximo Alanis by Governor Micheltorena in the year 1843.

It does not appear from the abstract when Alanis died; but his will is dated June 20th, 1847; and was admitted to probate October 20th, 1851. It is doubtful whether the probate was of any validity, but it ws probably valid under the Spanish law.

The will recites that the testator (sp?) had by his first marriage the following children:

Nicholas Alanis

Ysidro Alanis (deceased without issue)

Doretao Alanis de Romero

Paula Alanis de Valdez (deceased)

Julianna Alanis de Manriquez (deceased)

He left under his second marriage Juana Mirenda his widow and the following children:

Concepcion Alaniz


2a

Marcos Alaniz

Susana Alaniz

Josefa Alaniz

The will in effect leaves all his property to his children subject to a life estate in the widow.

The the statement of Mr. Foster contained in the abstract it appears that the widow died a few years after the death of her husband; that Nicolas died leaving issue. By deed dated November 1st 1851 Concepcion, Josefa, Susana and Marcos conveyed all their right, title and interest to Wilson Jones and W.J.B. Sanford; and the interest this conveyed appears from the abstract to have become vested by proper [mesne] conveyances in [to?] Samuel K. Holman on the 19th of August 1861. it appears however from the abstract of the proceeedings in the Probate Court that Josefa also conveyed her interest to Marin Lelong[sp?], but whether before or after the deed to Jones and Sanford does not appear. It appears also from the abstract


3a
that the interest of Dorotea Alaniz was conveyed by her to Marin Lelong on the 13th of November 1852, but it seems that in an action by Concepcion Alaniz against Martin Lelong his interest in the Rancho was sold under execution to Concepcion; and whatever interest she may have acquired under this sale passed by virtue of her previous deed to Jones and Sanford; but it does not appear whether there was any redemption or whether a deed followed the sale. It appears therefore that the interest of Nicolas and also (so far as the abstract shows) the interest of Doretea have never been acquired by Mr. Holman and are still outstanding.

The title of Mr. Holman therefore is defective in this respect unless the successors in interest of Nicolas and Dorotea hae lost their righteither by failure to present their claim to the Land Commission or by the Statute of Limitations.

With regard to the first point it appears that a petition for the


4a
confirmation of the grant was presented to the Land Commission by Wilson & Sanford on the 25th day of July 1866, and that subsequently a patent issued to them for the Ranch and we are inclined to think that under the decisions of the Courts the title of the succcessors in interest of Nicolas and Dorotea are barred; we also are inclined to think that they are barred by the Statute of Limitations - if, as we understand, Mr. Holman has been in adverse possession of the ranch ever since the issue of the patent; but upon these points some doubt exists in our minds from the fact that Wilson and Sanford were at the time they presented the claim tenants in common of the successors in interest of Nicolas and Dorotea; and also from the fact that they had notice of the adverse possession of Mr. Holman and his predecessors in interest.


5a

A question also arises as to the validity of the patent, which was issued under the Act of June 14th, 1860.

By the provisions of that Act publication of notice of the Survey was required to be made in a newspaper published in the City of Los Angeles; and also in a newspaper nearest to the land.

It appears from the patent that one notice was published in a newspaper in Los Angeles and another in a newspaper of the County of San Bernardino—which was not in compliance with the law. It has been repeatedly held by the Department that such a publication under the Act of 1860 was valid; but so far as we are informed the question has never been passed upon by the Courts.

While therefore we are inclined to think the title of Mr. Holman good, we cannot report it as a marketable title; unless the titles of the successors in interest of Nicolas and Dorotea are secured, and we cannot


6a
recommend a purchase until this is done and the more (?) especially as we are informed that some of these parties contemplated assembling their title in the Courts.

Glassell Smith & Partino Allepto.[???]