This might turn into a fun discussion. In the attached taking deed, at corners 7, 8, 9 & 10: which physical object is the monument for the corner (there are two mentioned at each).
?ÿThe plan that the deed refers to is also attached.
I'm thinking the intention is to the 2" iron pipes set, as many of the other monuments are the same.?ÿ The trees are just witnesses
Absent any other information, I read those calls as to a natural monument (tree) that has been marked by a pipe set at its base. The pipes are there merely to help identify which tree.
There is one monument at each. A tree with a pipe at its base.?ÿ
The deed says the trees are the monuments and that there is also an iron pipe at the base of the trees.
There is one monument at each. A tree with a pipe at its base.
This. If I??m following JPH I may choose not to disagree with his interpretation if it makes no significant difference. ?ÿI??m not in the habit of making a decision about a boundary until I??ve reviewed the record and field data.
?ÿ
I have hit the same problem out here in PLSSia.?ÿ The stone at a corner has been the monument since the first survey.?ÿ Then some joker sets a bar or pipe to it and identifies both as existing.?ÿ Then he runs a perfect traverse to the center of the pipe or bar.?ÿ He has just butchered the situation.?ÿ He should state that he set a specific iron object on a specific side of the true monument to facilitate location with modern metal detecting devices.?ÿ The pipe/bar is not the true corner unless the stone has been buried beneath that metal object and so stated both in the description and the survey plat.
The location of the pipes with respect to the trees may give a clue...
Are the 2" pipes flush with the ground, or are they sticking up? If they are sticking up (posts?), is there evidence of a fence attached?
Saw an example of this where folks agreed that the trees were the boundary markers, but didn't want to wrap fence around the tree (growth), so set pipes (posts) instead, and attached the fence to the pipes/posts.
He should state that he set a specific iron object on a specific side of the true monument to facilitate location with modern metal detecting devices.
?ÿ
It's been a while since I have needed to use one, but I always carried a few magnets in my vest to leave behind in the event we recovered a non-ferrous monument.
Or, why not blaze the tree itself? Both methods are faster and easier (and require carrying less junk) than setting a pipe or rebar...and cause less confusion.
I'm thinking the intention is to the 2" iron pipes set, as many of the other monuments are the same.?ÿ The trees are just witnesses
My initial feeling is that if the pipe was the intended monument it would say "to a 2" pipe set in the base of a tree" rather than to a "tree with a 2" pipe set in its base."?ÿ Measurement evidence and reliance will tell the tale.?ÿ?ÿ
One of the basic canons of legal construction is the Grammar Canon: Words are to be given the meaning that proper grammar and usage would assign them.?ÿ With is a preposition that is used to explain where objects are.?ÿ
A great reference...
Like ya no bro wut I ment. Chill. ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????ÿ
Like ya no bro wut I ment. Chill. ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????ÿ
Never have I heard a cow udder such a modern statement.?ÿ Pun very much intended.?ÿ 🙂
?ÿ
Back to the post at hand, I think the grammar of the deed should be read as it is written until you can prove it to be incorrectly stated.?ÿ For instance, if the bearings distances all check to the pipes then you can argue the deed may have been written wrong and that the intent is the pipes.?ÿ
Have you done the field side and found any or all of the monuments?
?ÿ
"...the meanders of the low water line of said River..." seems to be the monument.?ÿ The trees/pipes hopefully help define this location.
Thank you all for your input, and now "the rest ... of the story" as Paul Harvey used to say.
I'm taking over P.L.S. supervision on a project site, as my colleague retired last year. The boundary survey was done in 2003, and other work has been done off and on ever since. I've reviewed the field work that was done in 2003, brought the deed research up to date, and was working out the boundary analysis that was done in 2003. There aren't any notes in the file on how the deed vs. field discrepancies were worked out. There are large discrepancies between the record calls for bearing/distance and what was found on the ground for these taking lines.
My initial (quick) read of the taking deed I posted had me thinking the 2" pipes are the corner monuments, but at a couple of the corners, my predecessor referenced the pipes as off the corners by 2' and I couldn't figure out why. Re-reading the taking deed today, a little more carefully, I caught on to the grammar that says the trees are the monuments, and the pipes set at their bases are "merely to help identify which tree" (Rover83). I checked the labeling on the recorded plan from 2003, and trees are labeled at the corners where the pipes are referenced off, but not so clearly that they jump out as such. Corner 9 where a tree should be, is shown on the 2003 plan as a pipe. I guess the tree (a 6" gray birch) died, rotted away, and left the pipe as the only indication of the corner, so my predecessor held it.
The 2003 "No New Lot Lines" plan is attached. The area of the taking is at the south of locus, abutting land N/F U.S.A.
?ÿ
"...the meanders of the low water line of said River..." seems to be the monument.?ÿ The trees/pipes hopefully help define this location.
Yes, I was wondering why the locus property did not extend to the center of the river, until I read through the taking deed, and saw that the Feds deliberately took the river bed.
?ÿ