Old Deed Interpretation

Unlikely that the North Line was not intended to be parallel and along the road ROW, or a later road was not intended to be parallel to property lines. What do the descriptions to the East, West and South say? Been a general rule for Distance to hold over Direction.
jud

Usually At-Right-Angle holds as intent.
What you quoted does NOT say that the line in the westerly direction is at right angles to the highway. It says it is parallel to the North Line.
The right angles from the north line and parallelism hold over distance.
The 20 rods yields to the highway.

How does John Doe's read? It follows his north line.

> a recent surveyor for the owner of the property used the "at right angles" literally as 90 degrees in the northwest corner

Do you mean 90 degrees at the northeast corner? That is the only place called out as "at right angle".

> Question: which holds more weight, the original distances of 20 and 16 rods, or the "at right angles" interpreted as 90 degrees which ignores the specific lengths of the sides specified in the original deed?

To the highway holds more weight than distance called. You may disagree with him but you will have to find more evidence to dispute his findings.

i would be concerned with the guy to the east

add in your jr/sr rights.

is the highway the same as it was in 1914?

without seeing all of the pieces i would not make a final decision
based on what i've read, i would break the angle to hold the distances
how much of angle would the parallelogram have?

That's an old parcel, isn't there any evidence of the original stakeout? How long ago was the survey you do mention (I assume the one mentioned is supposed to be a retracement)? The survey you mention is a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous situation and I would not disagree unless there is physical evidence from nearer the time of the original survey that contradicts or there is very clear case law in your jurisdiction that instructs the surveyor to ignore the angle call and use the distances.

What Acreage Is Conveyed?

If it is 2 acres, the 16 rods is measured at right angles to the 20 rod line. However the direction of that line is parallel to the road and has a length greater than 16 rods. This deed cannot be read without all the adjoining deeds. Bounds calls along adjoiners have priority over direction and distance.

Then again there is no other adjoining deed:

"A 1914 deed reads as follows...."running thence in an easterly direction along the north line of the said John Doe 20 rods; thence in a southerly direction at right angles with said line 16 rods; thence in a westerly direction parallel with said north line 20 rods to the highway; thence along the east line of said highway 16 rods to the place of beginning...""

Along the north line of John Doe, then southerly (into John Doe), then westerly (through John Doe).... This is clearly an exception to John Doe's parcel. The exception being senior to John Doe's remainder, it must be made whole.

Paul in PA

I take "at right angles" to be a direction.

If distance holds over direction in your State then the "right angle" may yield in order for the distances fit as close as possible to Deed. The farmers who measured and wrote these Deeds were much better at distances than they were at directions. Of course physical evidence and other circumstances surrounding this Deed may influence the determination.

The Dimensions Indicate An Intent To Severe 2.000 Acres

20 rods by 16 rods = 320 square rods, i.e. 2.000 acres.

Then one must read an subsequent deeds of John Doe's parcel, if it reads excepting the 2 acre parcel sold to Old Deed Holder, case is closed.

Direction holds over distance in PA. One can see that the intent was an angle to the right, (easterly then southerly). But the words "right angles" are ambiguous. Holding 90° an be an injustice just as hold due North or due East when a general direction was intended.

From the information posted there is no evidence of occupation along a line, so intent is paramount.

Paul in PA

Thank you for the replies. Unfortunately an error was made in my post. The "at right angles" refers to the northeast corner of the said parcel, not the northwest. Sorry about that! The northern boundry is not at a right angle to the original highway which has not been moved since the original deed was written, just to make that clear. In New York, I am unaware as to whether distance takes presidence over direction. Since there are no actual bearings given in the deed, all references to north, south, east, west are not true bearings. Given the distances alone, the parcel would be a parallelogram to the highway; except with the reference to the "at right angles" at the northeast corner which would then change the distances on the east and south portions of the parcel and create an odd shaped parcel with no parallel sides (even though parallel is given in the original deed with respect to the north and south boudries of the property). The result of giving presidence to the "at right angles" changes 2 distance measurements and the "parallel" discription in the original deed. Please see my original message for the deed discription. Thank you.