ENPages
11
"Sam Mateo Rancho" granted to Howard by U.S. Patent in 1857 (page 23 of S. M. Rancho Abstract) 46.62 acres of it purchased from Howard by A. L. Easton in May 1860 -- (pages 82 to 90 of Easton Abstract & mentioned several times in S. M. Abstract - page 53 &c.). The part of this 46.62 Acres which lies east of the S. J. & S. F. railroad track is (I think) included in my intended purchase.
Mr. Rice has a note on page 86 of the Easton Abstract to the effect that he finds no title to in Ralston - to the 18 acres which he sold to Easton in 1869 - except a "floating title" acquired from Sanchez interests -- I think this "floating title" was not acquired until Nov 9th 1872 - After he had sold the eighteen acres to Easton - (the pages 295 to 297 of S. M. Abstract) See pages 269 & 270 of S. M. Abstract - regarding Sanchez title - I think the 18 acres sold by Ralston to Easton was a part of the land assigned to one Poeth under distribution of Howard Estate in 1862 (page 33 of S. M. Abstract) & Assigned to Poeth to Burlingame May 30th 1866 (page 67 S. M. Abstract) and sold by Burlingame to Ralston June 22nd 1866 (page 67
12
a portion of this 18 acres is included in the purchase I am negotiating and therefore we should be sure the title is good.
The greater part of the tract I have under consideration is a portion of the "Buri-Buri Rancho"
It is not clear to me how [Arnel L. Easton] acquired the portion of the "Buri-Buri" Rancho allotted to him. I should think he might have been one of the Sanchez heirs. Pages 1 to 11 of the Easton Abstract are supposed to explain.
The bulky Abstract which I send relates to my previous purchase at Burlingame. (from the Corbett Estate) -- but I send it as it may explain how Ralston's title to the 18 acres which he sold to the Easton people - and which the Searcher of Records declared he could not find.
S. L. Winchester
13
San Jose, January 22d. 1906
HON. S. F. LEIB,
SAN JOSE,
My dear Sir:
The large blue map which I sent you, shows all of the fifty acres which I have agreed to purchase from Mr. Easton, if title proves good and on which I have made a deposit. I have no other description of the property except such as the abstract sent you gives. This land adjoins the tract which I purchased from the Corbitt Estate about two years ago. You will find a description of my tract on page twenty-one of the continuation of the "San Mateo Rancho" Abstract which I am now sending you. At first Selby & Rodgers informed me that the tract of about fifty acres extended from my place to the Black Hawk Dairy, but later on having it surveyed they found that this limit included about twelve acres more, on which I have an option. The land which I purchased about two years since was originally a part of the "San Mateo Rancho" as was also that part of the Easton property immediately adjoining mine, and of which the Eastons purchased a part from Ralston. The Searcher of Records makes the note that he finds no title in Ralston, but I think Ralston acquired it by purchase at the same time that he did the land which I subsequently bought.
Selby & Rodgers informed me that if you desired it their attorney would call upon you. Perhaps it might be well for you to telephone them to have him do so, as he might be able to give some helpful information.
14
I have intended to come to see you as I undoubtedly would have been better able to explain matters in an interview, but a bronchial trouble has kept me quite closely in doors. I hope within a few days to be able to go to San Mateo County, but if you really need to talk with me before I go, I will try to call on you.
Yours very truly,
S. L. Winchester
The fifty acres referred to in the foregoing is all that I have under consideration at present.
S.L.W.
15
Menlo Park Calif
January 31st 1906
Hon. P. F. Leib
San Jose --
Dear Sir,
I enclose a letter which I have received from Selby & Rogers and it seems to me that it would be best to do as they suggest and give Mr. [Easton's] attorneys an opportunity to explain any doubtful points -
I think it was stated somewhere in the abstract that the object of the Eastons in buying portions of the San Mateo Rancho was to settle definitely the boundaries
