Does anyone have in their 'quiver' of case law, a case that opines upon what the solution is as to the intent of the parcel's boundaries when the description in question was a 'coffee table' document created by an untrained person circa 1938, using 'guesstimated at best' distances that did not mention within it a significant natural feature, a 100 foot +/- high escarpment (Niagara Escarpment ) ?
It is obvious from what has been created on each side of the subject land by Registered Plan ("Plat" I believe in USA) on one side and on the other, by reference to the natural feature in a deed's written description, that the cliff face was intended to be the boundary.
The description in question refers to original township Lot and Concession boundaries that would not be 'walktoable' to even guess where the Road Allowances and Lots were on the ground.
There are no road fences, vehicle tracks even today in this subject area.
Without a compass and measurements from very far away known points, one could be thousands of feet to miles out of place.
Thank you for your anticipated help.
Cheers,
Derek
Not sure if these will answer specifically what you are looking for, here are a few to get you started.
BREWER v. SCHAMMERHORN 183 Kan. 739 (1958), 332 P.2d 526.
O'GORMAN v BAKER, 219 Or. 170 (1959), 338 P.2d 638, 347 P.2d 87.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, L.L.P., v. The OLD TJC COMPANY, 177 S.W.3d 425 (2005).
SLIPP, v. STOVER, 651 A.2d 824 (1994).
BALLARD v. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO., 80 F.2d 588 (1935)
Thank you Brian.
Cheers,
Derek
Hey Derek, Who's ever going to challenge your decision, and on what basis? 🙂
