-
Only myself to blame
From this shop, a previous description that went to court and now I have to match:
to the southwest corner of said Section (witnessed by a 3″ brass cap per PLS XXX bears S89d39’31″W, a distance of 31 feet); thence S89d35’01″W, 2650.16 feet along the south line of said Section
Seriously we wrote that, dang!!!
When you look at little numbers too much, at least all the geometry works.
-
8 Replies
-
Anything under that brass cap?
-
Anything under that brass cap?
No, it’s an old fence line and county road intersection, the road was completely redone just a few years ago, mid 1990’s. It was excavated and rebuilt, also they buried a water line 8 feet down, it being some of the new county wide water project. Never say never, but that stone if it was there is gone now. The old county road notes tied it back in the early 1900’s as being in the center.
-
Different vernacular in different places. Calling to a cap seemed funny to me. We would specify first what the cap was affixed to then describe the text on the cap. I was picturing a brass cap loose on the ground.
The other thing that struck me was the bearing to the cap was given to the nearest second but at a very round distance (31 feet).
-
Different vernacular in different places. Calling to a cap seemed funny to me. We would specify first what the cap was affixed to then describe the text on the cap. I was picturing a brass cap loose on the ground.
The other thing that struck me was the bearing to the cap was given to the nearest second but at a very round distance (31 feet).
The tie distance I rounded up from 30.80, I was more annoyed by the WC bearing call, it’s 4′ plus a bit creating about .04 feet in the geometry, totally unnecessary and should have been taken care of with the original description. However, now I’m breaking out a parcel from the parent and I want to follow the first description. Nobody wants to see .04′ jump up.
-
“The tie distance I rounded up from 30.80, I was more annoyed by the WC bearing call, it’s 4′ plus a bit creating about .04 feet in the geometry, totally unnecessary and should have been taken care of with the original description. However, now I’m breaking out a parcel from the parent and I want to follow the first description. Nobody wants to see .04′ jump up. “
HUH? Where does the 4′ or 0.04″ come from? Do not see anything close in the original description.
Paul in PA
-
“The tie distance I rounded up from 30.80, I was more annoyed by the WC bearing call, it’s 4′ plus a bit creating about .04 feet in the geometry, totally unnecessary and should have been taken care of with the original description. However, now I’m breaking out a parcel from the parent and I want to follow the first description. Nobody wants to see .04′ jump up. “
HUH? Where does the 4′ or 0.04″ come from? Do not see anything close in the original description.
Paul in PA
The WC is intended to be on the section line, the tie is 4 minutes off line, in 30 feet not a big deal but the tie should land on the section line.
-
What about the fact you are at the south west corner of a section and then run west along said section???? You done left that section and are running along another???Jp
-
What about the fact you are at the south west corner of a section and then run west along said section???? You done left that section and are running along another???Jp
you are correct, should have typed southeast corner, which is how the legal reads.
Log in to reply.