Food for thought
"Skelton Boundaries and Adjacent Properties" copyright 1930. My copy is brown faux leather with gold lettering and it seems to be a reproduction of the 1930 version. There is no indication of an edition number that I find.
So turning to Chapter II "Relative Importance of Conflicting Elements"
i will jump around, but this is a very good chapter that relates well to SG's problem and there are numerous case cites.
page 161-Section 174 (dd) Effect of intention,--"All rules of boundary surveying have for their purpose the ascertainment of the expressed intention of the deed, and they are to be applied or taken exception to, depending upon whether their application or disregard most certainly effectuates the intention. "
page 154 section 169 (b) Least liable to error.--"...' The reason why monuments as a general thing, in the determination of boundaries control courses and distances is that they are less liable to mistakes, but the rule ceases with the reason for it. If they are inconsistent with the calls for other monuments, and it is apparent from all other particulars that they were inadvertently inserted, the reason for retaining them no longer exists, and they will be rejected as false and repugnant' (White v. Luning, 93 U.S.514, 23 L. ed. 938 )
page 135 section 152 (4) Exceptions.-- 'Where the control of an artificial monument over a course and distance would defeat the evident intention of the deed, an exception must be made, (Ehrenreich v. Froment, 73 App. Div. 213, 76 N.Y.S. 861) and likewise where their adoption is so manifestly wrong as to lead to an absurd result,(okay I cannot resist... Dane'S corollary THE APPLICATION OF ANY RULE TO THE EXCLUSION OF COMMON SENSE, is just asking for trouble) such as embracing the land of a third party, the monuments yeild to course and distance, and even quantity".(Post v. Wilkes-Barre Connecting R. Co., 286 Pa. 273, 133 Alt. 377)
page 102 Section 111(K) Over Course and Distance "In the final analysis the rigidity of the rule, due to the greater certainty and correctness usually found in monuments, is relative and ceases when the application defeats the intention of the conveyance under consideration. The rule authorizes no other departure from course and distance that is necessary to effectuate the apparent intention." (Taflifer Co. v. Falk, 105 Misc. 6, 173 N. Y. S. 251)
page 113 sestion 122 (M) Control as between Several Monuments. --(1) The rule.-- "When there is conflict between monuments, that which is most certain, least likely to mistake and in keeping with the expressed intention will prevail,(Hubbard v. Dusy, 80 Cal 281) and if one of the monuments in conflict cannot be found, this circumstance in itself is suggestive of an error in the call for it , and the other will control.(Lance v. Rumbough, 150 N. Car. 19,63 S.E. 357) Likewise where one the conflicting monuments is in agreement with other monuments or the courses and distance of a plat or deed and the other not, the harmony at once establishes control."
Dane Ince LS 8142
Certified Federal Surveyor, 1099
President of San Francisco Surveying Company, inc.
p 415-321-9300
f 415-543-1915
San Francisco Surveying Company
Every pin?
I come home today and someone had put a survey cap on my goat stake.
Every pin?
Perry, now that is what you call funny, just ask Larry the Cable guy.
Every pin?
Someone fancied up my horseshoe pits!
Rick
Every pin?
Perry- that ain't funny- A few years back we'd driven 2 rebar near the back line of one of our gravel pits for pegging levels-
went out one day to check things and there was a ypc from one of local firms on our rebar. I wonder how that fit.....
