Deciphering Colonial Deeds

Lots of research. At least around here, most of the time if you chase the title back far enough you can get reference to a lot number in the original layout of the town. Generally don't have a good POB tied to, unless the property is located at an intersection of roads. Now in the really old towns, good luck and have fun.

J. Penry, post: 326453, member: 321 wrote: Being from the PLSS states, it is easy to retrace the exact location of a parcel by it's legal description as described by quarter section of a section, township, range, meridian.

I have copies of many deeds from my ancestors in Rowan County, North Carolina, dating back to the 1780's to around 1830. Sometimes they list a creek, but usually just the adjoiners with a metes and bounds description to stones or trees with an acreage at the end of the description. How does one even begin to figure out where these tracts are located on the ground today? Rowan County was a fairly large county which was later split into Davie County in 1836 on the north part, but after my ancestors had already moved west.

I like the ones that are like 5 acres but described beginning with a description from 1800 "bounded by smith, jones, jones, lapatra containing 200 acres". Then 5 pages of exceptions described in similar fashion. Conveying about 5 acres. How to do it? Lots of investigating. Old maps and atlases, grantor grantee books, testimony of locals/landowners, land improvements like old plow furrows or fences/walls structures, history books from the period, local historical societies, etc..

At least the general vicinity of some of the tracts are known because a person in the 1970's had traced out the original land grant owners in Davie County and fortunately my fourth great-grandfather was one of them, so his name appears on a 300-acre tract. Interestingly, the family was located west of Mocksville where the Boone family had also lived and a son of my 4th gr-gr married into the Boone family. One deed has land being sold to Benjamin Boone.

J. Penry, post: 326453, member: 321 wrote: Being from the PLSS states, it is easy to retrace the exact location of a parcel by it's legal description as described by quarter section of a section, township, range, meridian.

I have copies of many deeds from my ancestors in Rowan County, North Carolina, dating back to the 1780's to around 1830. Sometimes they list a creek, but usually just the adjoiners with a metes and bounds description to stones or trees with an acreage at the end of the description. How does one even begin to figure out where these tracts are located on the ground today? Rowan County was a fairly large county which was later split into Davie County in 1836 on the north part, but after my ancestors had already moved west.

Research, research and hopefully live in an area that has had good surveyors in the past. I'm lucky to live in an area that has had good surveyors. You get an idea how much problems you will have if the deed quotes a surveyor by name. The main North South railroad goes through our area, it is the county line between Nash and Edgecombe counties. The town has a big railroad yard, it is mostly just marshaling yard now. Back in the steam days it was an overhaul facility. The railroad contributed Civil Engineers to the area, so most of our expansion back in the steam train era was laid out by those engineers. Until the early seventies when Surveyors go some good calculating power the areas mentioned in deeds are a guess unless it was a square or rectangle. That is waaaaaaay down on our evidence scale. Up into the late forties the rural surveys around here were mostly compass surveys. Even when they started getting transits they still were doing mostly reading the needle. Luckily when the automobiles became common around here it released a bunch of wagon and buggy axles for corner markers. Before then it was trees or Pine knots that had turned into what we call fat wood, those pine knots were used quite a bit in the woods. I haven't seen one of those in quite a few years. The small towns are hard to survey, but luckily I don't get much surveying in the outlying burgs. A long line to us is over 500 feet. Since burning the woods off every year was halted, the undergrowth has grown in a mess. When I was young we burned the woods off every fall after the first killing frost. In the woods of the farm of our family I could run full tilt through the woods with no problems. Now you can't see 50 feet into the woods from the edge of a field or a road. I live on the coastal plain area of the state, I talk with the folks from the western part of the state and wonder how they can do a survey there, their retort is they can't see how we can do a survey in the coastal plain area. Us colonial folks can't see how you can do a survey in public lands area of the country. It is which pig pen you learned to survey at, you have a different mind set from us Colonial folks, just two different pig pens. The older farmers, most of them are gone now from old age and their children (heirs) don't have the slightest notion of boundary locations.

Our firm surveyed a church in Greensboro, NC a few years back which was established in 1768, the deed for which was on file in Rowan County (two counties away). Based on that experience and others, I can confirm that research, research, and more research is the key. The county tax maps/GIS can sometime be helpful in tracing the original boundaries of older, larger tracts which have since been divided numerous times. Conveyances out of the original tract can also yield valuable clues, even if they are only an acre or so of a multi-hundred acre tract, since they typically have a point of beginning tied to the boundary of the parent tract (hopefully). Sometimes it's nice to know that my History degree is not going to waste as a surveyor.

I just had one today that was a peach.

2 acre lot with actual distances and two bearings! Score!

Oh yeah, there is excepted a 20 rod cranberry bog. But 100 years ago the fellow who owned the lot used the lot for sand for the big cranberry bog nearby and there is no longer a defined 20 rod cranberry bog. There are two remnant wetlands and one looks like a ditch that aims to another ditch, so that must be about where that bog was, right? The 1938 USGS aerials don't show much. The 1851 US C&G survey does not show a bog and they missed a nearby pond (it is far enough from the water that it was of less concern). The 1890 and 1858 atlases do not show anything here but a couple roads.

So punt. Leave 20 rods around the wetlands and a big note on the plan that it was the best I could do. If someone wants to resolve Gamaliel Cahoon's title and claim their 1/2 undivided interest in 1/8 acre of swamp land, then they can argue with me about the exact location it enjoyed 100+ years ago.

Enjoy spledeus!

spledeus, post: 326586, member: 3579 wrote: I just had one today that was a peach.

2 acre lot with actual distances and two bearings! Score!

Oh yeah, there is excepted a 20 rod cranberry bog. But 100 years ago the fellow who owned the lot used the lot for sand for the big cranberry bog nearby and there is no longer a defined 20 rod cranberry bog. There are two remnant wetlands and one looks like a ditch that aims to another ditch, so that must be about where that bog was, right? The 1938 USGS aerials don't show much. The 1851 US C&G survey does not show a bog and they missed a nearby pond (it is far enough from the water that it was of less concern). The 1890 and 1858 atlases do not show anything here but a couple roads.

So punt. Leave 20 rods around the wetlands and a big note on the plan that it was the best I could do. If someone wants to resolve Gamaliel Cahoon's title and claim their 1/2 undivided interest in 1/8 acre of swamp land, then they can argue with me about the exact location it enjoyed 100+ years ago.

I have had to do much the same in the past. Gather all the information and measurements that I can find, put together the "puzzle" to the best of my ability, and then let someone try to prove me wrong. If they can (hasn't happened yet) then I'll change my plat.

Andy

Andy Bruner, post: 326725, member: 1123 wrote: I have had to do much the same in the past. Gather all the information and measurements that I can find, put together the "puzzle" to the best of my ability, and then let someone try to prove me wrong. If they can (hasn't happened yet) then I'll change my plat.

Andy

I have told people numerous times that surveying is like putting together a puzzle, we hope for a kids puzzle with four pieces but sometimes we get a puzzle made by a blind chimp whose only tools were rage and dynamite.

I agree with Andy, let them prove me wrong. Being from VA most of the older deeds are bounded by. For instance I just did a survey for a gentleman who purchased two adjoing parcels from a tax abatement sale. One parcel was 2 acres more or less the other a 4 acre more or less.

The parcels had been in the family for the past 100 years and all of the surrounding parcels were family as well. The two acre description said. Beginning at a big pine tree, thence north to a cedar stake, thece east to a cedar stake, thece south from said cedar stake to a pine tree, thence west to said big pine tree. Being 2 ac more or less.

The four acre parcel...bounded on north by robinson, on the east by a different robinson, on the south by smith, and on the west by whom ever.

Now the all of the surrounding adjoing deeds had the same bounded by descriptions as the four acre parcel. With the exception of one 30 ac. Parcel to the south which had been surveyed in the early 60's.

I was able to determine the common line of the 30 acre parcel.

I talked to the only available family member that lived on adjoing parcel, he was an older gentleman 80's. He wasn't much help, like I said family land he was just one of about 15 cousins that was left some portion of property.

Everything had been clear cut, no old tree lines nothing of any occupation to go by. It all looked the same for about 100 ac.

I held the common line of the only surveyed parcel around and set up a two acre and a four acre parcel using the gis / tax map for general location and shape, held a couple pine trees that I thought may ancestors of the original described pines and set my rods.

The owner then asked me why my lines didn't match the GIS acreage, 3.4 and 4.8..., he said my deed says more or less, your taking land away from me. I explained without any lines of occupation or monumentation. Or parole evidence, the best i can do is give you what you purchased 2 ac & 4 ac. Needless to say he didn't like the explanation. But he paid me and I have moved on.

Let the next guy prove me wrong.

Sorry for long post

Ron

Much of the time, questions like Jerry‰Ûªs give rise to examples of actual boundary surveying, where going back and forth between the ground and the records repositories is what you have to do. But Jerry may also be asking about something a little less accurate, something that can in large part be done without going upon the ground, if only the pertinent records can be turned up. In almost every colonial-state county, there is or was somebody, like Jerry‰Ûªs person in the 1970s, who made some attempt to assemble plats of the earliest surveys and to see how they fit together. If you can get a handle on that work through the local historical societies, you have something that might be used in conjunction with the current GIS picture puzzle. It is in fact surprising how often an old parcel outline will be visible, not only chopped to pieces but often rather distorted, but still recognizable, on the tax maps.

A usual source of distortion is that many Colonial surveyors measured on the surface, even though the principles of plane surveying were well understood at the time. A frequent result is that as an ancient parcel got divided up by more recent surveys, the shape of the original has to be adjusted to surround what has proven to exist inside it. Obviously, this is also a result of working on paper without going into the field, but there are practical limits to what field work can accomplish when you‰Ûªre looking for ancient boundaries in hilly country back east. It‰Ûªs one thing to be professionally concerned with one or two specific parcels, however puzzling; it‰Ûªs quite another to be trying to locate several ancient parcels over a few hundred square miles.

Cheers,
Henry

Ron Lang, post: 326764, member: 6445 wrote: I agree with Andy, let them prove me wrong. Being from VA most of the older deeds are bounded by. For instance I just did a survey for a gentleman who purchased two adjoing parcels from a tax abatement sale. One parcel was 2 acres more or less the other a 4 acre more or less.

The parcels had been in the family for the past 100 years and all of the surrounding parcels were family as well. The two acre description said. Beginning at a big pine tree, thence north to a cedar stake, thece east to a cedar stake, thece south from said cedar stake to a pine tree, thence west to said big pine tree. Being 2 ac more or less.

The four acre parcel...bounded on north by robinson, on the east by a different robinson, on the south by smith, and on the west by whom ever.

Now the all of the surrounding adjoing deeds had the same bounded by descriptions as the four acre parcel. With the exception of one 30 ac. Parcel to the south which had been surveyed in the early 60's.

I was able to determine the common line of the 30 acre parcel.

I talked to the only available family member that lived on adjoing parcel, he was an older gentleman 80's. He wasn't much help, like I said family land he was just one of about 15 cousins that was left some portion of property.

Everything had been clear cut, no old tree lines nothing of any occupation to go by. It all looked the same for about 100 ac.

I held the common line of the only surveyed parcel around and set up a two acre and a four acre parcel using the gis / tax map for general location and shape, held a couple pine trees that I thought may ancestors of the original described pines and set my rods.

The owner then asked me why my lines didn't match the GIS acreage, 3.4 and 4.8..., he said my deed says more or less, your taking land away from me. I explained without any lines of occupation or monumentation. Or parole evidence, the best i can do is give you what you purchased 2 ac & 4 ac. Needless to say he didn't like the explanation. But he paid me and I have moved on.

Let the next guy prove me wrong.

Sorry for long post

Ron

My county's GIS page online lists acreage as well. It's amazing how precise they are too! For example, a common area calculation on their site is listed to 10 decimal places. So, pulling a real area at random, 14.4451912683 is listed for a parcel. I'm still waiting for someone to ask me where their .xxx1912683 acres is! Where does the county even come up with this stuff???

Zoidberg, post: 327030, member: 8841 wrote: My county's GIS page online lists acreage as well. It's amazing how precise they are too! For example, a common area calculation on their site is listed to 10 decimal places. So, pulling a real area at random, 14.4451912683 is listed for a parcel. I'm still waiting for someone to ask me where their .xxx1912683 acres is! Where does the county even come up with this stuff???

Being a Colonial Surveyor my whole career I have always considered the interpretation of deeds to be a large part of the Art of Surveying. I did go through the CFeds program and became cfeds #1499 just out of curiosity so I can "talk PLSS" when necessary and the discussions here on Beerleg are not gibberish to me when PLSS are discussed.

One of my favorite recent projects was from an attorney representing the estate of an elderly woman and in order to execute their fiduciary responsibility they were liquidating her estate. They uncovered one tax bill for property, location unknown. It was listed as 2.33 acres of upland and swampland. You'd think that in a resort community like Cape Cod the land would all be accounted for but you'd be surprised how many towns still carry "owners unknown" on their tax roles.

I did the research to find that the 2 acres was accounted for but the one third acre cranberry bog was the devil to locate! Luckily one back deed carried a reference to the train depot, which has long since been destroyed and abandoned, so I was able to identify where in town the parcel lay. At least which section of town.

Thadd will agree, I'm sure, that many of the deeds from 150 years ago have common abutters, same names come back over and over again. It was no different for this parcel.
Eventually I was able to narrow it down and on the ground I actually found the ditches defining the common bogs and was able to complete the project. This is now basically swamp land and the local Conservation Foundation offered $250 for the 1.33 acre. About 5% the cost of the survey.

Dtp