I'm going to guess that you will most likely not have had to explain to a client in his 80's why his ideas about where a corner of a league of land that was originally surveyed in 1835 are all wet. Most likely, your elderly client will not have had a conveyance made in 1868 to one Jackson Hammett in hand that describes that same corner as one of its corners, complete with bearing trees, and neither will he or she want you to make a survey tie to another corner about half a mile North of it to show where the actual league corner is.
I'm going to guess that you will you will not have written this client ten pages that explain, among other things, that in fact you have considered that same conveyance to Jackson Hammett in 1868 and have concluded after reviewing the report of some surveyors in 1892 and a survey made in 1916 that a certain iron pipe in concrete you have adopted as the league corner is that exact same corner described in the 1868 deed.
You have most likely led a charmed life if you have not had to write explaining for the record why these and other matters are so.
> You have most likely led a charmed life if you have not had to write explaining for the record why these and other matters are so.
I think you are wrong Kent. Almost every surveyor I know has gone through a similar scenario. It sounds to me that your client is pretty sharp regardless of his advanced age and he may be on to something. Without fully knowing the facts of your case, is it possible that maybe he should be exploring the "Equitable Doctrines" of establishing boundaries?
If that is not a possibility, I would simply present my invoice for payment and tell him that if he is dissatisfied with your opinion that he should get a second opinion or to have his trusted lawyer review your report and plat.
> Without fully knowing the facts of your case, is it possible that maybe he should be exploring the "Equitable Doctrines" of establishing boundaries?
No, his pet theory is the one that moves the boundary as far onto the adjoining owner as possible, but without any basis in equity. There were at least two mistaken attempts to locate the line in the early 20th century, one that is well onto him and one that is well onto the adjoiner, neither of which agrees with longstanding possession. He wants to ignore the language of his deed and those in his chain of title that place the line in a particular position and use instead the calls of some junior tracts to the East to justify adopting the mistaken location that is onto the adjoiner.
Now, listen here, Sonny. You were in diapers the last time I was wrong about something.
Pistols at 867 paces at sunset.
jud
Kent
Most of the time, I consider you wordy where you use many words where only a few will do. However, whenever I HAVE to write the surveyor's report, usually on O&G stuff that deals with original land grants in the 1000's of acres (much like you) mine get long winded too. 10 pages is generally the warm up with them lasting to 18 and 19 pages when I'm done and have reviewed it again.
In other words, good job on the brevity of the 10 pages.
🙂
Kent
Nothing seems more unjust than to be penalized for being good.
Kent
> In other words, good job on the brevity of the 10 pages.
Well, I'd previously written him a 30 page preliminary report when I had realized that the answer was going to be one that he would not like at all since it was at such variance with his pet theories that he'd lived with for quite a while. I never got the idea that he had actually read that one, so I sent it again along with the 60-page abstract of title that covered the research in the real property records.
The idea is to try to get him to actually discuss the specific issues based upon the facts. This has been a long, drawn-out project for various reasons, not the least of which being that I have done the majority of it pro bono. Yes, I would tell anyone else that is idiotic, but in this case, the boundary problem that he had was a classic one that had, as far as I could tell, defeated every surveyor who had tried to solve it in the 20th century, including a fellow who left behind an otherwise very respectable body of work.
It was also a classic case study in that at every turn I estimated that it would take probably just a few more days worth of work to crack the oyster. Most of the key corners fell in areas that hadn't been extensively cleared and there were lots of trees of the proper species and size that suggested they'd been there in 1841 when the original surveyor marked bearing trees. Moreover, some very comptetent surveyors had retraced the South line of the Mexican grant in 1892 (as I recall) and had made a fairly good report that is on file in the GLO. They claimed to have found the original evidence of the league line and after going over their work, I'd definitely agree that they did.
The odd twist was that the 1841 surveyor had completely missed the league line by about 116 varas and had given what could only have been a fictitious call to one of the league corners that was in substantial error. Shades of Stafford v. King.
Steve
Possibly I should have put "Tongue in Cheek" when I made my reply. Kent got it, but apparently, you didn't.
Kent
Yes, I have a couple of projects where the addendum's to the surveyor's report are only a few pages to about six.
I still love the big big boundary jobs where multiple land grants are at play. They make for the best projects. Normally, they pay very good as well. I'm more than a little surprised at how many surveyors won't tackle them and run screaming from them. Those projects are WHY we got licensed originally and are the backbone of HOW we do what we do in surveying in Texas. The trip back in time seems fun to me but horrific to others.
Now, I like to play in my own sandbox, I don't think I want to try my hand in West Texas section where the learning curve would be a bit steeper. 🙂
