Clark (1922) on actual lot width wider than 2 deeds dividing itƒ??

He cites the case to say the gap is apportioned between the two deeds. I think the better rule is the senior deed takes full measure and the Junior deed gets the remainder because in the case of a shortage the Senior would get full measure and the Junior would get less.

But wait, thereƒ??s more, here the Junior gets the extra 18ƒ? but he adds a comment at the bottom saying proportioning likely in most cases:

Not every lawyer gets and right and neither does every judge.?ÿ This is what happens when a judge in a PLSS state gets ahold of a metes and bounds description.?ÿ Poor fellow just couldn't get proportioning out of his mind.?ÿ Lol

This is why we should use the fence.

JK!!

@fairbanksls he found a case where the south line of 18 was 2.37 chains longer than record. One Land Surveyor apportioned the length, the second Land Surveyor made the east half of the line 40 chains which the court ruled for, he wrote that is ƒ??clearly erroneous.ƒ?

It also seems there are cases which make the government lots bear the entire deficiency rather than apportion it.

He does come around to: which rules apply depend on circumstances. He also has a few pages on the remnant lot in a block problem, sometimes it gets the surplus or deficiency, sometimes it is apportioned with the regular lots.

@dave-karoly?ÿ

How could the expert forget that sec 18 was special?

@dave-karoly?ÿ

I haven't read it yet, but here's Newcomb v Lewis in case anyone is interested in more details.

@bill93 itƒ??s in Missouriƒ??apparently Missouri had a statute contrary to the general ruleƒ??

Iƒ??m about halfway through the book. A lot of the first half is focused on the PLSS, the manual in particular. I think the idea is the Lawyer or Land Surveyor would have one handy reference.

The Riparian chapter is lengthy, there is some repetition, I have another 70 or 80 pages. Most of it is upper Midwest focused, rivers and lakes, very little sea coast so far. That could come later. It is a bit repetitive in parts, he circles back around and covers the same thing again.

He refers to Lawyers and Land Surveyors as ƒ??the Professions,ƒ? as on an equal footing. A lot of principles have a dual reason, one practical, the other equitable. He doesnƒ??t say ƒ??donƒ??t do this because itƒ??s equitable,ƒ? that comes later.

Reads like a simultaneous conveyance to me so proportioning makes sense.