Survey Plat vs Legal Case Law?

> Anybody know of any case law specifically where the survey plat was held over the description? Tennessee would be even better! Basically the theory I am looking for is that the legal was prepared from the plat and thus what was on the plat was the original intention absent any monumentation on the ground. Of course original monuments would have made this easy.

If the description was "prepared from the plat", and there is no evidence of the lines run and marked on the ground (which would control), what exactly is the conflict between the plat and the description?

If they were "simultaneous" and if there are differences (scriveners errors, etc) the issue comes down to figuring out what is right and what is wrong.

If they were not simultaneous, then I think older probably would control unless there was an explanation for the differences.

Yes, but only if it's called for in the description and the map is recorded. That doesn't mean the map will automatically control though, as others have said. But without the first two it is near impossible to prove the map was relied on and contemplated by the parties to the contract, and there is no notice to subsequent parties. Generally maps control when the first two are present because the more detailed controls over more general, and there is usually more detail on the map. But certainly not always.

Assuming you are looking at a deed with a description derived from an unrecorded plat,
and assuming the deed does not close but the plat does. Therefor the plat can and should be referenced as support in correcting errors causing the deed to not close but it cannot replace the deed.

But you are asking about case law so all that is JMHO.

Does The Description Properly Cite The Map?

Including map creator and date?

That would make the relationship stronger.

Paul in PA