I have two old deeds—1861 and 1865—that are similar enough in most ways that it is not easy for me to guess at a good reason for the second one. I’ll be as brief as I can without omitting descriptions, and if I seem to you to have omitted something helpful, please let me know and I’ll try to supply it.
The property is located in Loudoun County, Virginia, near the village of Lincoln. The first deed, in Loudoun Deed Book 6F 320-321 (4/17/1861), is from Yardley Taylor to his son Richard Henry Taylor, conveying to him (1) “A lot . . . beginning at a white oak in a line of Aquila Mead thence therewith N 1 ½ W 10 4/10 poles to the northern bank of the creek directly opposite to the mouth of the tail race thence up the stream S 68 ½ W 24 poles to a stake on the N bank of the creek thence S 27 ½ W 7 poles to a hickory above the head race thence N 76 E 26 poles to the beginning containing 1 acre 1 rood and 17 perches” and (2) “Also 2 rods wide along the head race to the lower dam together with 1 rood and 24 perches of land for said dam and the width of one rod wide along the upper race to the upper dam containing in this 1 acre 1 rood and 1 perch altogether containing 2 acres 2 roods and 18 perches.” The first lot closes very poorly indeed, and of course the second requires knowing where those landmarks are. The dams are obliterated, and the races are, too, for the most part; tiny embankments, that might cast a little shadow when the sun is right, can give a general idea, maybe, but nothing to measure from with any certainty.
The second deed, in Loudoun County Deed Book 5 U 250 (8/12/1865), is from Yardley Taylor to Richard Henry Taylor and William Wilder, who was a son-in-law of Yardley. The trapezoidal lot appears to have been resurveyed; shifted p.o.b., larger area, slightly better but still poor closure: “Beginning at a stake in the road on the north bank of the creek directly opposite to the mouth of the tail race, thence up the creek S 68 1/2 W 24 poles to a stake on the north bank of the creek, thence S 27 ½ W 7 1/10 poles to a hickory above the head race, thence N 85 E 25 2/10 poles to a stone in Mead’s line, thence with said line N 1 ½ W 14 4/10 poles to the beginning, containing 1 acre, 1 rood, and 27 perches.” The strip and dam parcel is described in the same words as those in the first deed.
It’s a small puzzlement, maybe, that the earlier deed is recorded in the later book, and vice versa, but these were the Civil War years in Virginia, and the courthouse records spent a lot of time in crates, being wagoned around to safe havens, and at last brought back to the county seat. Loudoun’s losses in that department were minuscule compared to what happened to land records in Fairfax and Prince William. Even in peacetime, of course, things got recorded when they got recorded. I have made a diligent search for anything chronologically between these deeds that would have negated the first, but haven’t found it.
What are some reasons that a second transfer would be made? Many thanks!
Here is the second one...
An excellent example of how mathematics doesn't help at all.
🙂
I assume that was yor point.
Don
Here is the second one...
I combined them in one StarNet project holding the southeast corner as the same point. The more northerly one in the 1865 Deed.
Here is the second one...
Obviously you can't just go out there and plot out the StarNet adjusted coordinates; the original monuments or the best evidence of their former positions. But it is an interesting way to make a Deed plot.
Besides I'm sitting in a hotel room in Fort Bragg (CA) with nothing to do.
Was the younger Taylor fighting age? Probably impossible to know?
Maybe the earlier written deed was a move to protect family land in case the father died at war?
No death> daughter married> give them each a cut.
On the earlier deed being recorded later, I like Mr. Karoly's guess.
Regardless of like/ dislike: Maybe the son realized he was entitled, by the earlier deed, to additional lands. Those described by his deed and the share (even if partially overlapped) of the second deed?
I'm guessing hand written, in cursive?
Here is the second one...
Now I see I plotted that wrong...the 1865 parcel includes an additional triangle on the south. The northeast corners are common.
Stakes on the north bank of the creek appear.
Here is the second one...
>
> Besides I'm sitting in a hotel room in Fort Bragg (CA) with nothing to do.
you mean besides having a charger plugged into every outlet, and clothes and gear suspended everywhere to dryout....:-P
Here is the second one...
:good:
I'd be more interested in the change of grantees and the need to record a second time. Finding old errors in descriptions is so common that I don't give those differences a second thought other than to try to figure out why.
Checking adjoining owners' descriptions may answer some of the questions with the descriptions. Looking for a prior description may give an answer. But is all of this really just an exercise in futility since you're looking at stuff 150 years old. While old descriptions are important and interesting, what's there may be what really matters.
I think it really looks like the picture below. It looks like the northerly line and the westerly line could be adjusted simultaneously but the later Deed may just be more accurate, or maybe not...
What Was Built ?
The son having been given land may have been required to erect a mill on it, hence it was not immediately recorded. Being unable to do so on his own he partners with his brother in law and the mill is built, hence the second deed. Or the son could have defaulted on a loan from his father or have lost 1/2 interest in a poker game and the father wanted to insure he paid his gambling debt, way too many reasons why.
More information can be found by finding who were the Grantors on the subsequent sale of the land and possibly described improvements.
Paul in PA
What Was Built ?
Wow! I can’t thank you gentlemen enough. I’m delighted to have the Star*Net work, because I intermittently try to learn that software, and it is tremendously helpful to have work on something I know, pitifully devoid of redundancy though it is. A couple of other clarifying points: these guys were Quakers, and did no fighting or gambling. Yardley lived from 1796 to 1868; Richard Henry 1826-1888. His mill operation was part of an iron foundry he ran there for a few years in the 1870s. He produced a plow of his own design, bullfrog-shaped doorstops, and farm bells. He went broke and moved to Wilmington, DE in the early 1880s. All that, I think, took place too late to have created local attraction problems in these divergent descriptions.
There is a third small lot, about 1.3 acres, created in March of 1881, adjoining the trapezoid on the north, its east boundary an extension of the trapezoid’s east boundary. It had “a small dwelling” on it. By 1882, through a melancholy series of mill failures, indebtednesses, and defaults on the part of Richard Henry Taylor, it had become the property of his first cousin and adjoining landowner, Thomas E. Taylor, who sold it to one William Valentine at the beginning of 1890. Valentine lived there until he died in 1918, and heirs held the place until 1935, when they sold it to Thomas E.’s son Henry B. Taylor (my grandfather, as it happens, but this research is not about genealogical glue-sniffing). H. B. lost no time in absorbing the lot back into the field that surrounded it: he bulldozed the cabin into its own cellar, burned it, covered it up, and bulldozed the fence around the lot, thereby doubtless removing also any corner marks that had been mentioned in the 1890 deed to Valentine. Thereafter until ten years ago, which was the last time I saw the spot, the only indication that there was ever anything there other than the fence that separates bottomland from arable field was a small but sturdy patch of daffodils that came up every spring.
The mill lot, however, which lies across a dirt road to the south, has left faint traces, small humps and hollows in the ground; but it, too, was gathered back into Yardley Taylor’s farm and has stayed with it through subsequent transfers.
The difference between them is that on the County Assessor’s map, the lot on the north side of the road continues to exist. That may be because the last time it was transferred was 1935 as opposed to 1888 for the mill lot. A couple of months ago I got interested in how things shifted around in that immediate area, and got to work on it. Because we live on Puget Sound, and the lot lay north of the bridge at Google Earth coordinates 39° 06’ 24.65” N, 077° 41’ 07.57” W, there have been plenty of rest periods while I wait for the next set of documents to be copied and sent to me.
Thanks again!
Cheers,
Henry
I have two StarNet solutions. I made the standard errors large to make it pass Chi Square. I'm assuming 1/4 degree on direction and half a pole on distance and centering errors (maybe centering errors should be smaller). On the second solution the difference is I reduced the distance and centering errors to a quarter pole so that it would pass Chi Square.
Solution 1 only has one common point; the rest of the points are adjusted seperately as if the second survey is better.
Solution 2 assumes the surveys are about equal quality, the stakes on the north bank of the creek were set by Deed 1 (although not stated) and found by Deed 2 so I adjusted both Deeds (assumed to be Surveys) simultaneously.
Solution 1 DAT file:
[pre]
# Loudoun Deed Book 6F 320-321 (1861)
#Yardley Tayor to Richard Henry Taylor
#Original distances in poles-converted to feet
.MAP ON
C 1 10000.000 15000.000 !! 'White Oak
B 1-2 N01-30-00W !
TB
T 1 N01-30-00W 171.6 'White Oak
#10.4p
T 2 S68-30-00W 396.0 'NorthernBank
#24.0p
T 3 S27-30-00W 115.5 'StakeNorthBank
#7.0p
T 4 N76-00-00E 429.0 'HickoryAboveHeadRace
#26.0p
TE 1
.MAP OFF
# Loudoun Deed Book 5 U 250 (1865)
#Yardley Tayor to Richard Henry Taylor & William Wilder
#Original distances in poles-converted to feet
.MAP ON
#C 8 10000.0000 15000.0000 !! 'Stone-in-MeadeLine
#C 5 10163.1123 14995.7288 ** 'Stake-in-Road
#B 1-5 N01-30-00W !
B 2-6 S68-30-00W !
TB
T 2 S68-30-00W 396.0 'Stake-in-Road
#24.0p
T 6 S27-30-00W 117.15 'StakeNorthBank
#7.1p
T 7 N85-00-00E 415.8 'HickoryAboveHeadRace
#25.2p
T 8 N01-30-00W 237.6 'Stone-in-MeadeLine
#14.4p
TE 2
.MAP OFF
[/pre]
Solution 1 List file:
[pre]
MicroSurvey STAR*NET-PRO Version 6.0.43
Copyright 1988-2011 MicroSurvey Software Inc.
Run Date: Tue Feb 24 2015 16:45:26
Summary of Files Used and Option Settings
=========================================
Project Folder and Data Files
Project Name 5U250&6F320
Project Folder C:USERSDKAROLYDOCUMENTSMICROSURVEYSTARNET
Data File List 1. 5U250&6F320.dat
Project Option Settings
STAR*NET Run Mode : Adjust with Error Propagation
Type of Adjustment : 2D
Project Units : FeetUS; DMS
Coordinate System : LOCAL
Default Project Elevation : 0.0000 FeetUS
Apply Average Scale Factor : 1.0000000000
Input/Output Coordinate Order : North-East
Angle Data Station Order : At-From-To
Distance/Vertical Data Type : Slope/Zenith
Convergence Limit; Max Iterations : 0.010000; 10
Default Coefficient of Refraction : 0.070000
Earth Radius : 6372000.00 Meters
Create Coordinate File : Yes
Create Ground Scale Coordinate File : No
Create Dump File : No
Instrument Standard Error Settings
Project Default Instrument
Distances (Constant) : 8.250000 FeetUS
Distances (PPM) : 1.000000
Angles : 900.000000 Seconds
Directions : 900.000000 Seconds
Azimuths & Bearings : 900.000000 Seconds
Centering Error Instrument : 8.250000 FeetUS
Centering Error Target : 8.250000 FeetUS
[/pre]
Solution 2 DAT file:
[pre]
# Loudoun Deed Book 6F 320-321 (1861)
#Yardley Tayor to Richard Henry Taylor
#Original distances in poles-converted to feet
.MAP ON
C 1 10000.000 15000.000 !! 'White Oak
B 1-2 N01-30-00W !
B 5-1 N01-30-00W !
TB
T 1 N01-30-00W 171.6 'White Oak
#10.4p
T 2 S68-30-00W 396.0 'NorthernBank
#24.0p
T 3 S27-30-00W 115.5 'StakeNorthBank
#7.0p
T 4 N76-00-00E 429.0 'HickoryAboveHeadRace
#26.0p
TE 1
.MAP OFF
# Loudoun Deed Book 5 U 250 (1865)
#Yardley Tayor to Richard Henry Taylor & William Wilder
#Original distances in poles-converted to feet
.MAP ON
#C 8 10000.0000 15000.0000 !! 'Stone-in-MeadeLine
#C 5 10163.1123 14995.7288 ** 'Stake-in-Road
#B 1-5 N01-30-00W !
#B 2-6 S68-30-00W !
TB
T 2 S68-30-00W 396.0 'Stake-in-Road
#24.0p
T 3 S27-30-00W 117.15 'StakeNorthBank
#7.1p
T 4 N85-00-00E 415.8 'HickoryAboveHeadRace
#25.2p
T 5 N01-30-00W 237.6 'Stone-in-MeadeLine
#14.4p
TE 2
.MAP OFF
[/pre]
Solution 1 Plot:
Solution 2 Plot:
Solution 2 Plot:
I'm assuming the bridge is about where the road always did cross the stream and is very near the NE'ly corner of the parcel. Also that these were written late enough that the author tried to give geodetic bearings, not magnetic.
In looking at that area on Google Earth I can see how the north line of the parcel seems to follow the general direction of the stream. The stream may have moved part of its channel so that it used to be closer to the NW'ly corner. See the 12/2009 photo with 3D turned on and rotate to look upstream.
I'm struck by the lack of any natural or remaining man-made features to indicate where Mead's boundary was.
The difference between the two descriptions corresponds very approximately to a flat field area. Not sure if that is relevant or not.
The fact that the SE'ly corners of the two descriptions fall pretty close to a straight line (Mead's line) to the NE corner seems to indicate that both were done to some reasonable accuracy and weren't trying to describe a parcel with the same south line. Dave- how far are they from being on a perfect line?
Solution 2 Plot:
On solution 1 the southeast corner of the 1861 parcel is 3.05' east of the line between the stone at the southeast of 1865 and the northeast of both parcels.
On Solution 2 I forced the three points to line up.
The other caution on the StarNet analysis is it assumes the lines were measured in one sight per line rather than multiple setups.