Give the devil his "due"

I would advise the client of the ambiguities and help them work out a solution with the adjoiner(s). I certainly wouldn't "stake" anything at this point.

You Have To Survey It Both Ways First

Nobody promised surveying would be easy.

Paul in PA

The original landowner created the mine tract about 50 years ago and mined it for several years. He then sold the mine operation, retaining the property and mineral rights. Technically there is nothing to stake. I am trying to clear up the now expanded mining permit legal descriptions other problem area. The expansion should have adjoined to this tract but missed it by some 360 feet.

You Have To Survey It Both Ways First

Technically it does not matter in the real world at this time. Which ever way I go will be fine with both parties. But, if it did matter, what would be the "correct" interpretation?

Consider what the author of that description considered what due was in relation to.

[sarcasm]Probably a shape like the desk he was sitting behind.[/sarcasm]

You Have To Survey It Both Ways First

> Technically it does not matter in the real world at this time. Which ever way I go will be fine with both parties. But, if it did matter, what would be the "correct" interpretation?

What matters is that you have to find the intent of the parties to the transaction, which could be a myriad of possible "solutions". It sounds like you have. If both parties are in agreement, document it, pass go and collect $200 (well, hopefully a little more).

I don't know, and only can think of things to consider. In the spirit of the idea that you need to retrace the original survey, I would picture someone out there, possibly with a compass and running lines. With that in mind, I would think the due norh direction was after taking out the magnetic declination.

If it was plotted on a map, perhaps replotting it on a comparable map and trying to find the original location based on the map used.

I tried the map thing, original was on a quad map. The original map was not recorded with the legal and would not have been available to any old body trying to figure this out. It was hard to spot the difference. You would think they would have noticed the section lines weren't square when they made the original map. The original lines were drawn with a wide marker but I suspect they were attempting to parallel the section. In any event the lines are neither parallel nor cardinal. Why they simply could not say what they meant in the legal is beyond my comprehension.

> I tried the map thing, original was on a quad map. The original map was not recorded with the legal and would not have been available to any old body trying to figure this out. It was hard to spot the difference. You would think they would have noticed the section lines weren't square when they made the original map. The original lines were drawn with a wide marker but I suspect they were attempting to parallel the section. In any event the lines are neither parallel nor cardinal. Why they simply could not say what they meant in the legal is beyond my comprehension.

I agree with you. Given no other knowledge or evidence, I would tend to assume that the assumed bearings on the section lines to be the basis of bearings and guess that they wree parallel with those. But I can think of a lot of different ways you could go as well that I could defend at least in my mind. The description is ambiguous (and that's even funny to say out loud when giving a distance and "due" north is about as unambiguous as you can get.) In fact if you take the description verbatim, how can someone state you did it wrong? (oops did I just convince myself I was wrong?)

I can see that I'm no help whatsoever.....:-/

The problem is that he stated "Due North", etc and never mentioned "and parrallel with" or running with" the section line. No indication of the bearings on the Section line were mentioned. In my mind, that means that you must go "Due North" regardless.

Due North in what bearing basis?

Well somewhere way up North there is this barber pole-looking thing with a big white knob on top and about six feet tall that marks the North Pole. I know this because I saw it in cartoons I watched on TV about 55 years ago. Just aim your whatsamajigger towards it and roll on.

> ... Thence due west 1700 feet; Thence due south 900 feet; Thence due east 1700 feet; Thence due north 900 feet to the point of beginning.
I think that you can go any way you please with this, without fear of contradiction, and let the rest of us follow you.

My inclination (pun intended), assuming you have shared all the evidence there is to share, would be to treat "due north" as astronomic North.

Wattles, Writing Legal Descriptions, Section 3.8, discusses this problem at length without coming to a definite conclusion.

wouldn't that infer geodetic north?

What ever they used 50 years ago. Magnetic or astronomical, I don't think they had GPS units back then.

When the section lines were first ran and monumented, didn't the surveyor believe he was running due North/South or East/West? If the answer is yes, than following his footsteps would mean the section lines determine the directions.

So if the deed writer calls for direction from section line to control the POB why wouldn't that infer they were referencing section line for basis bearing for the rest of the description? It seems to me like we try to read too much into this sometimes. Surveyors are the only folks that think about section lines not running due north or due east

> When the section lines were first ran and monumented, didn't the surveyor believe he was running due North/South or East/West? If the answer is yes, than following his footsteps would mean the section lines determine the directions.
The answer is actually no..

On the N/S lines he would have been attempting to run true north, but on the E/W line he would have been running "random and true" to connect the previously established section corners.

:good: