Odd bearing description in an old deed

I agree that an 1825 reference of a bearing with seconds is suspect. But before I discounted anything, some field work and cyphering would be in order.

It is difficult to determine the course from the written word.

You are entirely correct, sir. Unfortunately, this is ground upon which I will not be going any more, not that I'm a surveyor anyway. We live in Washington state, and I'm just doing a bunch of documentary stuff, every so often running into the hard fact that the answer may be in the field, beyond my reach.

Cheers,
Henry

I have seen similar notation in the U. S. public Land Survey System in Northeast Mississippi field notes. There will be an entry for degrees and then a "seconds" notation where there should be "minutes". If I go back and calculate the bearing based on the notes that would say, perhaps, " ran line due south. Intersected section line XX links east of post. Corrected bearing ......", then I would get the same numbers in degrees and minutes instead of degrees and seconds. On rare occasions, I will see a notation of, say, something like 89 degrees, 12-1/2 minutes.

>
> What I want to say about this is that given the surveyor’s equally frequent use of the coarser fractions, and the instrumentation typical of the period, it is better to read these as minutes than as seconds.

My best guess, given only the snippet that you've posted, is that the bearings are indeed in degrees and minutes. It appears to me that the lines were probably run to the nearest 1/2 degree and the minutes fraction was calculated from the falling or miss since the fallings would all appear to be even multiples of 0.01 poles.

That is:
[pre]

Falling Distance Brg. corr.

0.25p 58p 0°15'

0.07p 34p 0°07'

0.04p 17p 0°08'
[/pre]

I notice a decimal point as well. I wonder if it didn't hit exactly on an even quarter they wrote the decimal part? Were there instruments available with graduations like that?

Just guessing here. Perhaps the fractional degrees refer to existing lines that have that call while the non-fractional calls involve a calculation along the new lines as Kent has suggested. Not sure why the symbol suggests seconds instead of minutes but I would go with it meaning minutes until proven otherwise.

Odd Calls, Some Items To Consider

Begin by considering the acreage, "148 acres 3 roods 12 perches".
That is 148 acres and 3/4 plus 12 perches or 148 acres 132 perches.

There are 4 roods in an acre and a rood is 40 rods or 40 perches or 40 poles.

When the distances are in rods, perches or poles, the partial acres are given using the same words for area.

The creator of this deed has used them all. The scrivener is merely the hand that puts the description on the record and he is sworn to copy it as it is.

So let us assume the creator had some basis to believe he was more precise than most, first from his expanded detail of the acreage calls.

The measures begin with a bearing S 83 3/4 E which I would take as a compass bearing. Following that the courses get more precise so one might assume that angles were turned with a 1, 5 or 10 minute transit.

Then we have his distance calls, 58 poles 7 1/2 links, 34 or 84 poles 16 links and 17 poles 9 links.

Remember that there are 100 links in a chain, but only 25 links in a rod, pole or perch.

I have never seen an ancient deed with such a mixed variety of units.

From time to time units might get combined in multi-tract deeds and or deeds with exceptions. In such a case one understands the multiple sources.

The last possibility is to assume that the deed creator may have used so many words like a non expert trying to sound like an expert would do.

Paul in PA

Odd Calls, Some Items To Consider

> a 1, 5 or 10 minute transit.

In 1825 ??

I like the idea that some bearings were copied and others measured.

I'd first calculate a closure assuming those are minutes, and compute the area. Only if that didn't work out well would I start considering alternatives.

Most likely minutes. The only thing that would have given seconds were the instruments used by Hassler with the Coast Survey starting in 1807.

Not likely a transit as the American style transit wasn't developed and patented by Young until the 1830's. There were some early European style "theodolites" at that time, but even that would not be likely.

There were some variations of a "minute" compass - but in reality they were wishful thinking.

The most likely reason for the different bearing formats would be different surveyors at different times. It was common practice to not rerun lines of an adjacent survey so composite surveys were very common at that time.

Many thanks for all these thoughtful responses. I was so narrowly intent on my specific question that I did not mention a few things that came up in your posts. I have run the traverse assuming minutes in the five bearings that use two numbers, and found it to close poorly by present standards, but not unacceptably by the standards I’ve seen for the period, having platted or calculated, over the decades, several hundred descriptions in what is now western Loudoun County, from 1741 to the present. The closure (not forgetting its flaws as an accuracy index) is around 1:700. The area comes to 148 acres, 3 roods, and 13.4 perches. Close enough for goose-bumps, in my experience of the region and the period.

From my knowledge of this tract’s descent, I would be surprised if there were an earlier survey that differs from this one. It might be in the will of the man whose executors made this sale, or in some court-ordered division resulting from the will. I haven’t found it. There are, though, adjoining lines, which I have yet to examine closely enough to be certain that they don't use anything finer than fractions of degrees, but I'm almost certain.

There is a later survey, entered in an 1843 deed of partition arising from a suit in chancery. All its bearings are either whole degrees or degrees and fractions that range from ¼ to 7/8. The distances are all in poles and either fifths or tenths. The two deeds make a fine illustration of the principle, which I have heard recited by Dennis Mouland enough times that I remember it, that you should stick with the survey’s units as long as you can, or you will end up calculating with fractions that did not cross the surveyor’s mind. I had to go to smaller units with my traverse calcs. This one ended up closing at 1:1000, with an area of 148a, 3r, 3.5p. But once more I scuttle to add that these areas are based on calculations resulting in square feet, which puts us in sort of imaginary realms.

Kent, I confess that my skills and knowledge aren’t up to following your post. I know what fallings are in the context of running a random line and then a true line, but my understanding is that in that case the falling is wide of an extant mark, as for a quarter corner. Where in the snippet are you seeing fallings? Thanks.

Sorry this is so long. Again, many thanks to all of you.

Cheers,
Henry

> Kent, I confess that my skills and knowledge aren’t up to following your post. I know what fallings are in the context of running a random line and then a true line, but my understanding is that in that case the falling is wide of an extant mark, as for a quarter corner. Where in the snippet are you seeing fallings? Thanks.

It isn't completely uncommon to see a bearing from a compass survey run in Texas in the 1840's expressed to the nearest minute. Typically, it is a closing course with the rest of the sides run on even degree bearings. What nearly certainly produced the closing course was that a trial line was run on an even-degree bearing that would in theory close the figure and at the end of the run the falling was noted and the even-degree bearing was corrected to the degree-and-minutes bearing that would have struck the POB.

In your case, I can imagine that a line was run at some even degree or half-degree bearing and the falling was noted where the line came to a corner, thus giving the basis for calculation of the bearing. If the line followed an existing line through timber, it would have been easy enough to choose the bearing of the even half-degree trial line or baseline from the marked trees along the line.

What struck me about the bearings given in the description is that if you assume that the trial line had a bearing that was the nearest half-degree, and then calculate the falling that would have been consistent with a trial line so run, the fallings are integral multiples of 0.01p units. Since the corners appear to have been marked by suitable trees actually at the corner, running a trial line and correcting up would seem to be the only feasible way to begin and end at a tree.

Well, there's an aha! moment for me, and I thank you very much indeed. That is very persuasive and helpful.

Cheers,
Henry

Here in upstate NY near CT MA corner, I've seen a few descriptions with rods (poles) and links. I would guess they were measuring with a 2 pole chain (33 feet long) and it was easier to count the tally pins as 2 poles rather than a half a chain each time. From what I remember the deeds I came across were from the early 1800's or even 1700's. Chains and links descriptions are much more common. If I came across your deed around here I would have no question about the bearings being in degrees and minutes, not seconds. I would figure they were using a staff compass reading to the nearest 1/4 degree, and the 53°23' bearing was an average of readings forward and back on the same line, say N 53°30'E looking forward and S 53°15'W looking back after they moved ahead, likewise the 42°52' might have been 42°45' forward and 43°00' back, averaged. I think the decimal point, like the " for minutes is just an idiosyncrasy of the scrivener, nothing more. A 1 in 700 closure is probably not bad for a survey done with a compass and 2 pole chain.

Your scenario about the closing course is plausible, but in my neck of the woods the most likely thing is that the closing course was never run, but calculated. When the tracts were large and the closing course was long it was very seldom actually run on the ground.

Dave, I see you're from Virginia and since we are talking about old surveys I have to ask, have you ever come across any G. Washington surveys?

I don't know for a fact how they measured their bearings but it makes a lot of sense to me that they read the compass bearing of a line from each end, that is forward and back. In addition to being a check it would also reveal any "deviation of the needle" due to local magnetic attraction. I have seen at least one deed (in 34 years) that did give both forward and reverse bearings on a particular line citing "deviation of the needle" for the reason. If this was in fact done here it would further make sense to average those bearings when they came up different (slightly, and not a blunder). From the limited section of the deed given it is conspicuous that some of the bearings are given in fractions of a degree (in 1/4 increments) while the courses given in minutes fall midway between that increment(half of 15' = 7.5' then rounded up or down). I'd be curious if in the remainder of the description 8',1/4°,23',1/2°,37',3/4°,52' came up after the whole degree number.

Taking compass readings both fore and aft is certainly good practice and good for blunder checking or determining local aberrations. However, this would only apply to smaller tracts where you actually see from corner to corner. On most surveys you would not actually see corner to corner, rather you were just projecting a line because the corners were too far apart.

Yes, I have actually seen surveys done by George.

Questions For Dave Ingram ?

Dave,

When might a transit/theodolite with a 1, 5 or 10' vernier been available.

Additional question on transits. When did it generally become possible to add angles on the plate by multiple D&R observations? What was the least count on the circle? What was the least count on the vernier? 3D & 3R on 1° circle could readily be interpolated to 1/8° while if it were a 10' vernier it becomes a no brainer to add on the plate and come up with minutes.

In 1825 how would Natural Sines, etc, tables be broken down, degrees and minutes or degrees and 1/8, 1/4 etc.? My oldest text is from 1882 and is in degrees and minutes.

Paul in PA

Here's an attempt to post a legible copy of the whole description. Had to do it in two panels, otherwise zooming in made it too grainy.

Dave, I know you're right about the treatment of the last course. I have several examples of Northern Neck grants that end the description "thence to the Beginning" or "thence to the First Station," no bearing and distance at all. Sometimes qualified by "with the meanders of the creek."

Cheers,
Henry

> Your scenario about the closing course is plausible, but in my neck of the woods the most likely thing is that the closing course was never run, but calculated. When the tracts were large and the closing course was long it was very seldom actually run on the ground.

In the earliest days of Texas surveying, during the colonial period before 1836, it was typical for surveys to be fully made as required by Mexican law, meaning: all sides run and marked. Some surveyors actually recited the fallings on the trial closing course and gave the course calculated from them.

Later, particularly after 1870, when the mountains of land scrip to be located arrived, all sorts of shenanigans took place, including surveying none of the sides of the location.