Description

I think I'd chase back to the earliest occurrence of the description to see if someone miscopied it along the chain of transfers.

Then I'd compare adjoiners.

If the problems were in the original, then I'd try substituting N35 34'W for E35 34'W etc until I got something that looked about right with the adjoiners and contained an acre more or less.

Unfortunately, my first attempt, which tried to make a convex polygon, has a closure error of 118 ft, mostly in northing. I don't see an easy assumption to fix that.

Exactly what I did Bill and actually it worked well with abutting deeds and existing monumentation/possession. Just posted it so others can appreciate it. Other than here my friends and family would look at me blankly if I showed it to them.

Hack

And, to think, some people assume being a surveyor is nothing but walking around in the woods. Attempting to grasp the intent of others, frequently long gone, is quite the mental challenge.

Huh? What?

For those who don't live in PLSSia, how does this work?

Are you saying that the bearings were mislabeled? :-S

It is really interesting that the EW & EE bearings were smaller than 45°. :-/

Thank the FSM that he blessed me with residence within the great state of Texas. RAmen.

Huh? What?

> For those who don't live in PLSSia, how does this work?
>
> Are you saying that the bearings were mislabeled? :-S
>
> It is really interesting that the EW & EE bearings were smaller than 45°. :-/
>
> Thank the FSM that he blessed me with residence within the great state of Texas. RAmen.

That was the first thing I noticed also Steve. I don't know what significance it has.

First thing is to trace this back to the original description. This was a simple one in that I only was back to 1840 or so. The description never changed. Because the description was unusable on it's face I was able to go outside of the deed.

The site had several old stone walls which although not called for in the original deed are, in these parts, considered good evidence of the original footsteps. Those walls gave me a good idea of the correct directions and when I applied my corrections the deed closed remarkable well.

This begged the question. If once corrected the closure is good it stands to reason that someone with some idea as to what they were doing wrote this. If that's so how come the huge directional call problem?

Hack

Huh? What?

Did you get a copy of the original? Could it have been a fancy Scribner making funky letters that look similar.

Huh? What?

> If once corrected the closure is good it stands to reason that someone with some idea as to what they were doing wrote this. If that's so how come the huge directional call problem?

I would assume someone (unfamiliar with bearings) wasn't able to tell a fancy-pants-quill-tipped-ink "N" from an "E".

Strange things find their way into our conveyances, for sure. That's why we're here!

Huh? What?

Vern & cash.....you are spot on. I just looked at the original deed and sure enough it's an N. It actually does look more like an E. The first time I read it and I had more less already solved the problem and didn't pay as much attention as I should of.

Hack

Huh? What?

What was the "westerly" bearing along the street? If it was S 60 31'W then my first attempt at the quadrants was right and the closure is 1.08 ft, but that's a long way from West and I didn't assume that.

I understand the script N vs E problem, but what about the fifth course that needs to be S 22 08'E. How do you turn a script S into an E?

Huh? What?

> > For those who don't live in PLSSia, how does this work?
> >
> > Are you saying that the bearings were mislabeled? :-S
> >
> > It is really interesting that the EW & EE bearings were smaller than 45°. :-/
> >
> > Thank the FSM that he blessed me with residence within the great state of Texas. RAmen.
>
>
> That was the first thing I noticed also Steve. I don't know what significance it has.
>
> First thing is to trace this back to the original description. This was a simple one in that I only was back to 1840 or so. The description never changed. Because the description was unusable on it's face I was able to go outside of the deed.
>
> The site had several old stone walls which although not called for in the original deed are, in these parts, considered good evidence of the original footsteps. Those walls gave me a good idea of the correct directions and when I applied my corrections the deed closed remarkable well.
>
> This begged the question. If once corrected the closure is good it stands to reason that someone with some idea as to what they were doing wrote this. If that's so how come the huge directional call problem?
>
> Hack

My first thought was it was possibly off ENE since they were less than 45°, but I've never seen a call like that.

Most of the Spanish & Mexican land grants were written originally in English then transcribed into Spanish. Now if you want to use one of those you then have to transcribe the Spanish back into English. The English notes were never preserved in most cases. And of course you must use varas instead of rods/feet/chains. And the length of the vara changed with each surveyor. That just scratches the surface.

> What do you think?

Being from MI and having to deal with that kind of stuff, but not so bad, I learned that sometimes you can't fix things. Generally it involves the simple fact that they don't want to pay enough to fix it. A deed can be valid, all the while totally wrong. Almost a title problem, or at a minimum somebody elses problem? Case in point here.

screwy bearings

Screwy bearings can make you scratch hair off you head. This is a recorded plat in Oklahoma County. North is at the top of the page. Compare the lot line bearings from the south side of the road (probably correct) with the lot line bearings on the north side of the road.

Playing a wild hunch, I think I spotted the tract in Google Maps. Or at least there is one that looks close to it in shape and the south line along the road is approximately the same bearing as what I plotted...

Reference The Correct Deed Book/Page In New Description

Wow, 3 errors in 7 courses. Besides being unable to read script, the error producing scrivener had no clue about deeds and surveying.

Paul in PA