ashton, post: 430158, member: 422 wrote: "Kent McMillan wrote "At first impression, I'd say that the relevant question is whether the description in the town record book simply followed an existing path, using courses and distances to identify the route or whether someone actually surveyed an entirely new route along the lines described in the record."
The recorded deeds of the era read something like "the land of Smith, bounded on the east by the land of Jones, on the south the land of Allen, on the west the land of Warner, and on the north by the land of Wentworth." There are no angles or distances mentioned.
The easterly part of the road was part of the Crown Point Military Road, built during the French and Indian War to connect Fort Ticonderoga with what is now Charleston, New Hampshire. I've been on tours with a group that's trying to retrace the road, and no one is sure what the exact route was in my neighborhood
Clearly it's way easier to survey in Texas where they have "field notes" and calls for monuments than any of the colonial states.
TWO-SHAY
Dave Karoly, post: 430161, member: 94 wrote: Clearly it's way easier to survey in Texas where they have "field notes" and calls for monuments than any of the colonial states.
Not really, what I got from what Ashton posted was that the road was an existing one in 1810. So in that light, the courses and distances in the layout probably just identify the route. Doesn't get any simpler than that if the road is still in use.
ashton, post: 430158, member: 422 wrote: The recorded deeds of the era read something like "the land of Smith, bounded on the east by the land of Jones, on the south the land of Allen, on the west the land of Warner, and on the north by the land of Wentworth." There are no angles or distances mentioned.
The easterly part of the road was part of the Crown Point Military Road, built during the French and Indian War to connect Fort Ticonderoga with what is now Charleston, New Hampshire. I've been on tours with a group that's trying to retrace the road, and no one is sure what the exact route was in my neighborhood
I trust that there are nearly contemporaneous maps of the town, however, on which ownership lines may be compared to the route of the road by a number of methods, digital and analogue, to draw some conclusion about whether the road most likely was already in existence in 1810.
A military road? is another story. Certain roads having been traversed by the King's Army, become a King's Highway which requires a 6 rod = 99' right of way. Farmers fronting on a King's Highway were to keep the right of way clear of trees so that the army could pass unhindered. Vermont being an original English Colony may have King's Highways of record. Check that out.
Paul in PA
eapls2708, post: 430009, member: 589 wrote: ...and that aside from the tree near one end of the 8 mile line, no surveyor in recent decades had been able to find physical evidence conclusively determined to be from the 1858 survey.
Surveyor Jensen found the stump of an original line tree with notch that was within a couple hundred feet from Bloxham's parcel.
Kent McMillan, post: 430171, member: 3 wrote: I trust that there are nearly contemporaneous maps of the town, however, on which ownership lines may be compared to the route of the road by a number of methods, digital and analogue, to draw some conclusion about whether the road most likely was already in existence in 1810.
What I would really like to find is the original lotting plan, which shows the lots drawn by the original proprietors in the lottery that first divided the land. Unfortunately trips to the town clerk and the state archives turned up nothing.
There are maps from the mid 1800's that show which people lived on which road, but nothing as early as 1810.
Paul in PA, post: 430174, member: 236 wrote: A military road? is another story. Certain roads having been traversed by the King's Army, become a King's Highway which requires a 6 rod = 99' right of way. Farmers fronting on a King's Highway were to keep the right of way clear of trees so that the army could pass unhindered. Vermont being an original English Colony may have King's Highways of record. Check that out.
Paul in PA
Other King's Highways in Vermont are still known as such; I've never heard any in my area. It turns out there is a Wikipedia article about the military road.
ashton, post: 430179, member: 422 wrote: What I would really like to find is the original lotting plan, which shows the lots drawn by the original proprietors in the lottery that first divided the land. Unfortunately trips to the town clerk and the state archives turned up nothing.
There are maps from the mid 1800's that show which people lived on which road, but nothing as early as 1810.
Well, if you can identify distinctive features such as bends in the road, you can verify that there were no conveyances between adjoining landowners between the time of the original grants and the date of the map. That would be at least some evidence that the later map was a representation of the original scheme, particularly if it was prepared at a time when the original lotting plan would have most likely existed for copying by later mapmakers.
In the original grants of lots, are the lots described by reference to the plan, e.g. "Lot 28 as shown upon the Plan of the Town of Benanjerry".
Kent McMillan, post: 430184, member: 3 wrote:
In the original grants of lots, are the lots described by reference to the plan, e.g. "Lot 28 as shown upon the Plan of the Town of Benanjerry".
I haven't looked for that; I'll have to check next time I'm in the vault.
We have driven the Boston Post Road (US Route 1) from Philly to Maine. It takes us 6 days wandering North on the old road and one day on the Interstates returning.
Paul in PA
aliquot, post: 430083, member: 2486 wrote: The idea that title to roads that are easements passes unless specifically excluded is followed in all states I am familiar with. The specific exclusion has to be clearly stated with a clear statement like, "excluding the area occupied by XXX road." Calling to the near edge of the road doesn't cut it.
I just got my hands on Vermont Survey Law, a summary of law and case law from the Vermont Society of Land Surveyors (2nd. Ed). It's summary of the 1947 Vermont Supreme Court case Abraham et al. v. Daugherty (115 VT 71) does indeed confirm our expectation that usually, conveyance to the centerline of the road is intended, "unless the language used by the grantor in his deed shows a clear intent to limit to the side of the highway, and in all cases where general terms are used in a dead such as 'to a highway' or 'upon a highway' or 'along a highway' the law presumes the parties intended the conveyance to be to the middle or center line.
"Although a conveyance calling for the side line of a street or highway as a boundary has sometimes been construed as including the street or highway to its center, generally such an instrument is held to limit the grant to the side line, in the absence of language or circumstances indicating a different intention."
So it seems like, although other states might demand language such as "excluding the highway", in Vermont the highway may be excluded through language such as in my southerly neighbor's chain of title: "Beginning at an iron pipe set in the southerly line of the "Belgo Road"...thence South 58?ø-30' East a distance of ... (225.0) feet along the southerly line of said highway..."
ashton, post: 430911, member: 422 wrote: I just got my hands on Vermont Survey Law, a summary of law and case law from the Vermont Society of Land Surveyors (2nd. Ed). It's summary of the 1947 Vermont Supreme Court case Abraham et al. v. Daugherty (115 VT 71) does indeed confirm our expectation that usually, conveyance to the centerline of the road is intended, "unless the language used by the grantor in his deed shows a clear intent to limit to the side of the highway, and in all cases where general terms are used in a dead such as 'to a highway' or 'upon a highway' or 'along a highway' the law presumes the parties intended the conveyance to be to the middle or center line.
"Although a conveyance calling for the side line of a street or highway as a boundary has sometimes been construed as including the street or highway to its center, generally such an instrument is held to limit the grant to the side line, in the absence of language or circumstances indicating a different intention."
So it seems like, although other states might demand language such as "excluding the highway", in Vermont the highway may be excluded through language such as in my southerly neighbor's chain of title: "Beginning at an iron pipe set in the southerly line of the "Belgo Road"...thence South 58?ø-30' East a distance of ... (225.0) feet along the southerly line of said highway..."
If the property on both sides of the road are sold to the edge of the road "circumstances indicating a different intention" exist.
aliquot, post: 430913, member: 2486 wrote: If the property on both sides of the road are sold to the edge of the road "circumstances indicating a different intention" exist.
I think so too. Things get sticky if both sides of the road are conveyed to different buyers on the same day.
Considering the easier case of A, who owns on both sides, sells the south lot to B, describing the southerly edge of the road as the boundary, in 1970; A retains the north lot for now. B's lot does not contain any road. Later, in 1980, A sells the north lot to C, and the deed describes the northerly edge of the road as the boundary. I couldn't find a VT case that explicitly says so, but I would presume the entire width of the road goes to C, so as not to leave a gore.
ashton, post: 430911, member: 422 wrote: I just got my hands on Vermont Survey Law, a summary of law and case law from the Vermont Society of Land Surveyors (2nd. Ed). It's summary of the 1947 Vermont Supreme Court case Abraham et al. v. Daugherty (115 VT 71) does indeed confirm our expectation that usually, conveyance to the centerline of the road is intended, "unless the language used by the grantor in his deed shows a clear intent to limit to the side of the highway, and in all cases where general terms are used in a dead such as 'to a highway' or 'upon a highway' or 'along a highway' the law presumes the parties intended the conveyance to be to the middle or center line.
"Although a conveyance calling for the side line of a street or highway as a boundary has sometimes been construed as including the street or highway to its center, generally such an instrument is held to limit the grant to the side line, in the absence of language or circumstances indicating a different intention."
So it seems like, although other states might demand language such as "excluding the highway", in Vermont the highway may be excluded through language such as in my southerly neighbor's chain of title: "Beginning at an iron pipe set in the southerly line of the "Belgo Road"...thence South 58?ø-30' East a distance of ... (225.0) feet along the southerly line of said highway..."
This is true in California, a call for the sideline defeats the presumption.
And half of a lot is half of the useable area (e.g. outside of the R/W) even if ownership extends to the centerline.
