ENPages
16
between if and the Buri-Buri Rancho and I think the portion so purchased were afterward regarded as a part of the Buri-Buri. I have not the abstract or anything to refer to, but my impression is that the southeasterly portion of the 13 35.58 acre tract of land - containing 632.43 acres of land which was set off to [Ansel M. Easton] in the partition which included the part of the San Mateo Rancho which [Ansel L. Easton] purchased from the executor of the Howard Estate in 1860.
Yours truly,
S. L. Winchester
17
San Jose, Calif. February 3d. 1906
HON. S. F. LEIB,
SAN JOSE, CALIF.
My dear Sir:
I was at Fair Oaks when I received your letter enclosing duplicate which you suggested sending to Selby, Rodgers & Co. I immediately sent it to them and intended to answer your letter but was unable to do so.
Your letter of yesterday is just received. I would not feel satisfied to act on the suggestion of the Easton people and close up the transaction, reserving part of the purchase money until title is cleared &c. I prefer to be given a clear title or have deposit refunded. This part of the tract which has questionable title, is to me the most important part of all, as it is immediately adjoining my property, and that was my only reason for desiring any of it.
Yours truly,
S. L. Winchester
18
San Jose, Calif. February 7th. 1906.
HON. S. F. LEIB,
SAN JOSE,
Dear Sir:
Your understanding of my letter was correct. I do not wish to pay any more of the purchase money until I can be given a perfect title. When such a title can be given me I am ready to finish up the transaction. I have been a little sorry that I agreed to take the land upon the terms of the contract, but having done so, of course I shall fulfill to the letter, my part of the contract. I should not wish to give the Eastons an indefinite length of time to clear up the title.
Yours truly,
S. L. Winchester
19
JUDGE LEIB,
SAN JOSE,
My dear Sir:
Possibly you understood that I wanted all of the abstracts. I desired only the abstract of the Corbett property, or rather of the San Mateo Rancho. I had not paid much attention to the agreement regarding the sewer, which was located on the southern boundary of the place previously to my purchase of it, and as there has recently been some trouble from overflow at the manhole, I thought I had better look up the agreement &c. I am hoping every day to be able to get to Fair Oaks, so I thought I had better return you the Easton abstracts, as you may need them before my return. I notice that in the new abstract, Mr. Rice still says that he "finds no title in Mr. Ralston" to the two small pieces that he sold to the Eastons. If Mr. Ralstons's title was as clear as I thought the San Mateo abstract showed it ( and I think you agreed with me ) it seems strange that Mr. Rice should not discover it. Is it possible that we are mistaken? If so, I should think that the Eastons have not a good title to these two pieces.
Yours truly,
S. L. Winchester
March 21th, 1906
20
Menlo Park California March 30th 1906
Hon. S. F. Leib San Jose
My dear Sir,
In your letter which I received last evening- the statement given as to what Selby, Rodgers + Co. agreed to do regarding Buri Buri Avenue, is just as I understood it and accepted.
The sewer matter still puzzles me and I do not see just how to solve it- As laid out their sewer will discharge at the bank, beyond which my line is many feel out in the water -- If ever -- I or
