Elitha C. Donner married Perry McCoon, who was subsequently killed by a runaway horse. On the eighth of December, 1853, Mrs. McCoon was married to Benj. W. Wilder. They reside on the Cosumnes River, a few miles from Elk Grove, Sacramento County, Cal., and have six children. Leanna C. Donner was married September 26, 1852, to John App. They now reside in Jamestown, Tuolumne County, Cal., and their family consists of Rebecca E., born February 9, 1854; John Q., born January 19, 1864; and Lucy E., born August 12, 1868, who reside with their parents.
Frances E. Donner was married November 24, 1858, to William R. Wilder, and now resides at Point of Timber, Contra Costa County, Cal. Their children are: Harriet, born August 24, 1859; James William, born May 30, 1863; Frances Lillian, born July 17, 1867; Asaph, born May 7, 1870; and Susan Tamsen, born September 3, 1878. Georgia A. Donner was married November 4, 1863, to W. A. Babcock. Their family consists of Henry A., born August 23, 1864; Frank B., born June 29, 1866; and Edith M., born August 24, 1868. Their address is Mountain View, Santa Clara County, Cal.
Eliza P. Donner, on the tenth of October, 1861, was married to Sherman O. Houghton. Mr. Houghton was born in New York City, April 10, 1828, served in the Mexican war, was Mayor of San Jose in 1855 and 1856, represented California in the Forty-second and Forty-third Congress, and is at present a prominent member of the San Jose bar. Mr. and Mrs. Houghton have six children. The youngest living was born in Washington, D. C., at which city his family resided during the four years he served as member of Congress. Their children are: Eliza P., Sherman O., Clara H., Charles D., Francis J., and Stanley W. Their youngest born, Herbert S., died March 18, 1878, aged twenty months. Mary M. Donner, daughter of Jacob Donner, was adopted into the family of Mr. James F. Reed, in 1848. She continued a member of this family until her marriage with Hon. S. O. Houghton, of San Jose, August 23, 1859. June 21, 1860, Mrs. Mary M. Houghton died, leaving an infant daughter, Mary M., who is now a young lady, and a member of the family of Mr. and Mrs. Houghton.
George Donner, Jr., son of Jacob Donner, married Miss Margaret J. Watson, June 8, 1862. Their children now living are: Mary E., Corn J., George W., John C., Betty L., and Frank M. Albert, their eldest, died in 1869, and an infant son died in 1875. George Donner, Jr., died at Sebastopol, February 17, 1874. Mrs. Donner now lives with her children on their farm near Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California.
Chapter XXIV.
Yerba Buena's Gift to George and Mary Donner
An Alcalde's Negligence
Mary Donner's Land Regranted
Squatters Jump George Donner's Land
A Characteristic Land Law Suit
Vexatious Litigation
Twice Appealed to Supreme Court, and Once to United States
Supreme Court
A Well taken Law Point
Mutilating Records
A Palpable Erasure
Relics of the Donner Party
Five Hundred Articles
Buried Thirty-two Years
Knives, Forks, Spoons
Pretty Porcelain
Identifying Chinaware
Beads and Arrow-heads
A Quaint Bridle Bit
Remarkable Action of Rust
A Flintlock Pistol
A Baby's Shoe
The Resting Place of the Dead
Vanishing Landmarks.
Yerba Buena's citizens, shortly after the arrival of George and Mary Donner, contributed a fund for the purpose of purchasing for each of them a town lot. It happened that these lots were being then distributed among the residents of the town. Upon the petition of James F. Reed, a grant was made to George Donner of one hundred vara lot number thirty-nine, and the adjoining lot, number thirty-eight, was granted to Mary. The price of each lot was thirty-two dollars, and both were paid for out of the fund. The grants were both entered of record by the Alcalde, George Hyde. The grant made to George was signed by the Alcalde, but that made to Mary was, through inadvertence, not signed. A successor of Hyde, as Alcalde, regranted the lot of Mary Donner to one Ward, who discovered the omission of the Alcalde's name to her grant. This omission caused her to lose the lot. In 1851, a number of persons squatted on the lot of George Donner, and in 1854 brought suit against him in the United States Circuit Court to quiet their title. This suit was subsequently abandoned under the belief that George Donner was dead. In 1856, a suit was instituted by George Donner, through his guardian, to recover possession of the lot. Down to the spring of 1860, but little progress had been made toward recovering the possession of the lot from the squatters. The attorneys who had thus far conducted the litigation on behalf of George Donner, were greatly embarrassed because of their inability to fully prove the delivery of the grant to him, or to some one for him, the courts of the State having, from the first, litigation concerning similar grants, laid down and adhered to the rule that such grants did not take effect unless the original grant was delivered to the grantee. Such proof was therefore deemed indispensable.
After such proofs upon this point as were accessible had been made, the proceedings had ceased, and for several months there had been no prospect of any further progress being made. During this time, one Yonti, who had undertaken to recover possession of the lot at his own expense for a share of it, had the management of the case, and had employed an attorney to conduct the litigation. Yontz became unable, pecuniarily, to proceed further with the case, and informed Donner of the fact, whereupon the latter induced his brother-in-law, S. O. Houghton, to attempt to prosecute his claim to some final result. Mr. Houghton applied to the court to be substituted as attorney in the case, but resistance was made by the attorney of Yontz, and the application was denied. Houghton then applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandate to compel the judge of the court before which the suit was pending, to order his substitution as attorney of record for Donner. This writ was granted by the Supreme Court, and in January, 1861, Mr. Houghton became the attorney of record. This suit had been brought by Green McMahon, who had been appointed Donner's guardian for that purpose, and after a full examination of the case, Mr. Houghton dismissed it, and immediately commenced another in the name of George Donner, who was then of age. In the following year, February, 1862, it was brought to trial before a jury, and after a contest which lasted ten days, a verdict was rendered in favor of Donner.
The squatters appealed to the Supreme Court of the State where the verdict of the jury was set aside, a new trial ordered, and the case sent back for that purpose. This new trial was procured by means of an amendment of the law, regulating trials by jury in civil cases. This amendment was passed by the Legislature, at the instance of the squatters, after the verdict had been rendered. A new trial was had in 1864, before a jury, and resulted in another verdict for Donner. The first trial had attracted much attention, and was frequently mentioned in the newspapers of San Francisco, and thus several persons who were present when the grant was made had their attention called to the controversy, and to the difficulty encountered in proving a delivery of the grant. They communicated to Donner the fact that it was delivered for him to William McDonald, the man with whom he lived at the time. They also narrated the circumstances attending the delivery of the grant. This information, however, came too late for the purposes of the trial. Prior to the second trial, the written testimony of all these witnesses was procured and in readiness for use when required, but it was never required. Mr. Houghton and the attorneys whom he had called upon to aid in the case, determined to rest its decision upon another ground. They concluded to insist that, as it was a grant issuing from the government through its instrument, the Alcalde, who was invested with authority for the purpose, no delivery of the grant was necessary, and that none was possible, as the entry on the record book of the Alcalde was the original, it bearing his official signature and being a public record of his official act. This was a bold attack upon the rule which the courts had long established to the contrary. After a full argument of the question at the second trial, the court sustained the view of the law taken by Mr. Houghton and his associates, and, on appeal, the decision was sustained by the Supreme Court of the State, and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, before which the question was carried by writ of error.