Interesting Deed Calls

Hmm, I certainly haven't seen anything like that before.?ÿ I would guess it's 13 acres and then the decimal portion is 3 rods times 4 links??ÿ If my math is right that would be 13.003 acres.?ÿ Curious to see what others think.

That's very precise. I have seen area expressed in rods on some deeds. I always assumed they meant square rods. Like some construction crews I know always say something like, they are getting 80 yards of loam.?ÿ?ÿ

I would probably expect that to be 3 rods 4 links squared as well or about 0.06 acres if I hit the right numbers on the keyboard

Posted by: @jon-payne

3 rods 4 links squared

(3 rods +4 links) squared or 3 rods squared plus 4 links squared?

@bill93

I don't think it would matter.

I believe it is square rods, and square links. And it does matter what order you consider the operation.

sq. ft. = (3R + 4L)(3R + 4L) = 9RR + 24RL + 16LL

vs.

sq. ft. = 9RR + 16LL

with R = 16.5 ft. and L = 0.66 ft.

Common for old descriptions around here with the exception that it usually is in acres, roods and rods not links.

assuming they really meant links, I come up with 0.019 with each section computed individually then added together.

Hopefully the description is unambiguous so the area won't matter.

Here are some other odd deed calls.?ÿ It is interesting to try and figure out how/where/why a rod is broken into 11 or 16 parts of a fraction.?ÿ One deed call is for 1/11 of a rod and another is 11/16 of a rod.?ÿ How do you break a rod up into 11 or 16 parts??ÿ How is that measured with a Gunter's Chain, assuming they used a chain? One four-pole chain = 66 feet long and contains 100 links.?ÿ Some of the old surveyors used a two-pole chain, that was 33 feet long with 50 links.?ÿ I have actually found a piece of land with the dimensions given in chains, and the occupied property was 1/4 of that size, according to the fence lines on the ground.?ÿ I figured that the surveyor used a two-pole chain instead of a four-pole chain and forgot to specify how long his chain was.?ÿ The distances measured on the ground between fence corners were very close to half of what the deed calls in 66-foot chains were, and the area was supposed to be four acres instead of sixteen acres. The property is around an old abandoned church (now gone) and cemetery in the middle of the woods in the middle of nowhere, so no one has ever caught or questioned it.?ÿ?ÿ

I am assuming that the standard measuring device during that time (approximately 1930's) was a Gunter's Chain.?ÿ I have seen old pictures of surveyors actually using a long stick that was one pole or one rod long.?ÿ One rod = 16.5 feet = 25 links.?ÿ I am thinking that maybe these surveyors used a Gunter's Chain.?ÿ 1/11 of a rod = 1.5 feet = 2.27 links, or about 1-1/4 links.?ÿ 1/16 rod = 1.03 feet, or about one foot = 1.5625 links, or about 1-1/2 links.?ÿ When a distance was measured between two points using a chain, and the required unit of measurement was to be in rods, they had to convert chains and links to rods. Quarter marks on a Gunter's Chain got the distances in rods. Then they had to figure out the portions, or fractions of a rod.?ÿ Maybe there was a "rod table," like the old trig or log tables that they used that converted chains and links to rods and fractions of rods. Were there marks on a wooden "pole" that were 25 units (links)??ÿ One link = 0.04 rods, but they used fractions.?ÿ The closest measurement that they could have made would have been one link, and maybe estimated quarter-links. That is the only plausible explanation that I can come up with.?ÿ We read these old deed distances, but have you ever thought about how did they actually made those measurements in the field?

More thoughts to ponder!?ÿ What are your thoughts on this??ÿ .?ÿ ?ÿ

@bill93?ÿ

In this instance, they both round to 0.06 so I see the need for the question.?ÿ I would consider the rods and links to be a report of the total 'distance' that needs to be squared as opposed to being two different units that need to be squared individually.?ÿ So I used (3 rods + 4 links)?ý

I just had a quick look and found no particular "authoritative" source for addressing this matter.?ÿ Would love to know if there is some source that states use this method or that method.

Either of the choices is highly unlikely to be visible in a 1948 measure of 13?ñ acres in my opinion, but if we were talking about a small town lot, it might make a difference as to which method is used.

@peter-lothian

Mathematically it matters, sure, but practically speaking the links (probably) won't even show up at the hundreths decimal place.

Posted by: @bstrand

@peter-lothian

Mathematically it matters, sure, but practically speaking the links (probably) won't even show up at the hundreths decimal place.

In the example above, it does not matter, but there are 160 square rods to an acre. If the square rod value were 99 instead of 3, we would be at 0.2 acres difference.

?ÿ

Regarding the first post entry in which the area was stated as "13 acres, 4 rods and 4 links."

from Britannica, it states:?ÿ "rod, old English measure of distance equal to 16.5?ÿfeet?ÿ(5.029 metres), with variations from 9 to 28 feet (2.743 to 8.534 metres) also being used. It was also called a perch or pole. The word?ÿrod?ÿderives?ÿfrom Old English?ÿrodd?ÿand is akin to Old Norse?ÿrudda?ÿ(ƒ??clubƒ?). Etymologically?ÿrod?ÿis also akin to the Dutch?ÿrood?ÿwhich referred to a land area of 40?ÿsquare?ÿrods, equal to one-quarter?ÿacre, or 10,890 square feet (1,012 square metres). It also denoted just one square rod, or 272.25 square feet (25.29 square metres). The?ÿrood also was a British linear unit, containing 660 feet (201.2 metres)."

The acreage in the description is calculated to be 13.78 acres.?ÿ If one rod (or rood) is a measurement or statement of an area of one quarter of an acre, then "3 rods" or "3 roods" is 3/4 of an acre, or 0.75 acre.?ÿ The 3 links could be an indication of the .03 acre needed to get the area calculation up to .78 acre.?ÿ

This has been interesting to me.?ÿ I am curious to hear what others have to say about this.?ÿ Do you guys think that this is a reasonable conclusion??ÿ As another stated above, if the parcel description is unambiguous, then the stated acreage will not matter.?ÿ I can somewhat understand where the scrivener came up with the deed description.?ÿ I don't encounter something like this very often.?ÿ

I was pondering the old practice of dividing a rod into parts.?ÿ It seemed a little odd to me as to why a surveyor would divide a 16.5-foot rod into 16 parts. Then, I had a sudden realization: treat a rod subdivision like we do with fractions.?ÿ We have halves, quarters, eights, and sixteenths.?ÿ It would be easy to find the midpoint of a rod, then the midpoint of the two halves, and so on until we had a measuring device with 16 marks on it that could be used to express measurements using fractions of a rod.

Long-ago surveyors using measuring devices of their day needed a convenient method for measuring distances less than the increments on their measuring device.?ÿ The four-pole chain had 100 links, with quarter marks for rods.?ÿ Evidently, and in all likelihood, the surveyor laying out the parcel above with rods and fractional rod distances was probably using a 16.5-foot long wooden pole that had fraction marks on it.?ÿ If he had used a Gunter's chain, he would probably have used chains and links, or rods and links as units of measurement.

The deed call that got my attention was one from a survey conducted in North Carolina.?ÿ It said to go a certain bearing and distance to a cucumber.

All I could picture was a rotted shell on the ground a few days later.?ÿ I had no idea there was such a thing as a cucumber tree.

In the real world this made as much sense as some survey from area with a call going to a walnut or pecan or apple without adding the word tree.