.....to a cement post set in the ground; thence running along a brook in a northeasterly direction 320 feet, more or less, to a cement post set in the ground (the straight distance between the cement posts previously mentioned being N46-05E 315.2 feet); ......
The sketch shows the current location of the cement posts and brook.
Where is the boundary?
The Hack
> ....thence running along a brook
To me the center of the brook would be the boundary line, because it is a physical feature. Would have been nice if the author of description had said "along center", but it works.
> > ....thence running along a brook
>
> To me the center of the brook would be the boundary line, because it is a physical feature. Would have been nice if the author of description had said "along center", but it works.
:good:
I agree.
The language indicates that the distances were the straight-line distances between the markers, but that the boundary meanders along the brook. To me, the first marker is there to help determine where you end your straight line, and where on the brook, your next course starts. Go to the brook and follow the brook until you are opposite the next concrete marker. That concrete marker helps you find where to terminate your traverse along the brook and begin your next course.
Unless the language is specific in some other way I would hold the center of the stream.
So everyone agrees that although originally a corner monument neither cement post is one today? Are people assuming that the posts were originally marking the center of the brook and that the brook through erosion, accretion etc has moved?
What do the adjoining deeds say?
I would think, in lieu of better evidence, that the cement posts mark a point on the line. The deed may call to the posts but the brook would be a superior call anyhow as a natural monument.
Adjoiner has the same description.
no- that's not what they said. 😐
no?
> So everyone agrees that although originally a corner monument neither cement post is one today? Are people assuming that the posts were originally marking the center of the brook and that the brook through erosion, accretion etc has moved?
>...to a cement post set in the ground; thence running along a brook in a northeasterly direction 320 feet, more or less, to a cement post set in the ground (the straight distance between the cement posts previously mentioned being N46-05E 315.2 feet); ......
No one said the cement post are not corner monuments.
The description goes to the first cement post. Then to the center of the brook. You did not say what direction it goes after the second cement post? It could have gone North when leaving the brook at one time? Or the brook could have moved, but the second cement post still defines where the boundary leaves the brook even if it is not a corner monument now. What other choices are there for the boundary?
The adjoiner descriptions are a must here.
You are right Scott I left out an important piece of information. Assume north to be up the page, our property is south of the brook and from the second post our boundary heads south.
That is possible and only provable with a witness to the fact.
Anyway, the brook is the boundary and the position of the posts show where the boundary enters the brook.
0.02
Thanks all.....I agree the boundary is most certainly the center of the brook. I just wanted another viewpoint since I am at odds with someone over this. Thought maybe in my senility I was missing something obvious.
> So everyone agrees that although originally a corner monument neither cement post is one today? Are people assuming that the posts were originally marking the center of the brook and that the brook through erosion, accretion etc has moved?
No, not everyone agrees with your statement. Maybe that is your interpretation, but I wouldn't agree with that wording.
The stream is an original monument as well. It is "x-distance" to a concrete post (from something). From there, you follow a stream the distance to another post that is "y-distance" from the first post. If you take that to mean that the post used to be in the middle of the stream, or that you aren't to "go along the stream" or something else, I would have to see more evidence to support those contentions.
> I am at odds with someone over this.
What is the other opinion? I am having a hard time imagining something other that "along the brook"
Are you in a Colonial State and not the PLSS? If so, I would tend to agree that the line most likely follows the brook.
However, the word "along" can mean different things to different surveyors. The wording could have been added as merely a reference to indicate the approximate direction of the line to follow. Would it mean the same if the wording had instead stated "along the crop line", "along the tree line", "along the road", or "along the fence"?
The only reason I state this is because I have seen descriptions in the PLSS where wording was added in the description as a reference or guide and not as a line to follow exactly. For instance, it is generally accepted that a line between the end points of a long fence has two points and not 200 points if one were to literally follow the description of "along the fence".
Just my 0.02'.
the use of the word "along"
I tend to despise the use of the word "along" because it can be interpreted too many ways. Instead, I use "on." As in, ..on the west line of Section xx, or...thence on the centerline of the creek..., or on the top of the (direction) bank of the creek...
To me, I think of "along the brook" to mean on one of the banks. In this case, the description is vague. I think I would talk to the client and adjoiners to find out where they think the boundary is.
If the description stated, from cement marker, northeasterly to cement marker, there would be no arguing where the boundary is.
Perhaps the intent was to go from marker to marker and someone added the brook verbiage to give someone an idea of where to walk to find the other marker.
:-S
My guess is that if you're a B's fan, then you're in NE. How old is the description? Is it old enough to account for some movement of the stream over time? That could possibly account for the bound located southerly of the stream. Riparian rules would apply. I would agree that the stream (natural) would take precedence over the bounds, generally.
-V
A careful description writer would have said "with the stream" instead of "along" if that were the intention, but we don't know how careful this person was.
An older thread on [msg=223460]Along vs With[/msg]
