Martines 2nd March 1864.
Brayton Esq
Dear Sir
I received yours of the 26 ult, last Saturday night, on Monday. I was compelled to leave home at an early hour & did not return until Tuesday, & could not, sooner, examine the subject [written of?] in your letter.
I have, however now, examined the case and find that the contract, between Castro & John Willson was executed on the 5th of August 1852. In which Willson agreed to prosecute the claim of Castro to the Solmente Ranch before the Land commission & to obtain a [confirmation?] if possible. And in consideration of such professional services, Castro agreed to convey to Willson 1/10 of the Ranch. Whenever Willson should require a conveyance this contract was Recorded. At the time this contract was made the statute did not authorize it to be Recorded. No provision had been made for Recording that kind of contract and therefore the Record did not impart notice of its existence to other persons. The contract however was good between the parties and could be enforced, but persons who had no notice of its existence could not be prejudiced by it. Subsequent purchasers of the land
Martines 2nd March 1864.
Brayton Esq
Dear Sir
I received yours of the 26 ult, last Saturday night, on Monday. I was compelled to leave home at an early hour & did not return until Tuesday, & could not, sooner, examine the subject [written of?] in your letter.
I have, however now, examined the case and find that the contract, between Castro & John Willson was executed on the 5th of August 1852. In which Willson agreed to prosecute the claim of Castro to the Solmente Ranch before the Land commission & to obtain a [confirmation?] if possible. And in consideration of such professional services, Castro agreed to convey to Willson 1/10 of the Ranch. Whenever Willson should require a conveyance this contract was Recorded. At the time this contract was made the statute did not authorize it to be Recorded. No provision had been made for Recording that kind of contract and therefore the Record did not impart notice of its existence to other persons. The contract however was good between the parties and could be enforced, but persons who had no notice of its existence could not be prejudiced by it. Subsequent purchasers of the land