Long post. I need thoughts and consideration from fellow professionals!
Today's dilemma:
Background: this survey is for an old church in Chickasaw County, Mississippi, that had 188 or so members back before the civil war in a previously heavily populated area. Today, there are over 500 graves in the cemetery, and the church needs to update and confirm their boundary lines by combining two deeds, and file a deed of correction. To the best of my knowledge, there are only two surviving members of the church, and old records are scarce. I have to work with what I have and find on the ground.
The first deed was filed on June 4, 1859, and was a "bounds" description, not tied to the Mississippi USPLSS, and reads in part as follows: "A lot or parcel of land in the SE 1/4 of (STR) in Chickasaw County, MS, of the Basis Meridian of the Chickasaw Cession, containing four and 25/100 acres bounded as follows, to-wit: Beginning at a Red Oak, running thence N54°30'E - 8chains, 50 links to a stake 3 red oak pointers, thence N36°W-5 chains to a stake, a red oak & 2 hickory pointers, thence S54°30'W- 8 chains 50 links to a stake, 3 Spanish oak pointers, thence direct to the Point of Beginning." Interesting to note what they referred to as a "pointer." Maybe a reference tree? All evidence of trees have long gone in the past 166 years of occupation, use, and possession of the land, and it is unknown as to the actual location of this parcel. One problem that came up was that it was generally thought that this parcel is not located where the church is located today, and did not encompass the church and growing cemetery. The church was re-built at some point in time, and the newer church was built on or very near the original church building. It is unknown as to why it is considered that this bounds description did not encompass the old church building and the old part of the cemetery, so a second quitclaim deed filed based on a survey to encompass the newer church building and extents of the expanded cemetery in 1963.
Second deed: this appears to be an actual ground survey done in early 1963, and reads in part as follows: "Beginning at a concrete marker it being the Northwest corner of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of (STR), thence......to a truck axle, being the Point of Beginning. From said POB, run S22°30' East - 272.7 feet to an axle; thence North 47°00' East - 809.0 feet to an axle; thence North - 342.0 feet to an axle; thence S47°00'W - 972 feet to an axle; thence South 22°30'E - 57.3 feet to the POB. Conains 6.75 acres, more or less, and being located in the SW 1/4 of (STR)." I found three of the five of the axles (NW, POB axle, SE), and a fourth axle was found on the southwest corner laying down in the road ditch. Of note, this description does not close by about 75 feet, which is a gross error. My problem is trying to reconcile the found axles with the deed calls. I did find an axle located very near the deed angle going northerly from the southeast corner, but at a measured distance of about 148 feet compared to the deed distance of 342 feet. As luck would have it, I just happened to see it while walking along the east line. I tried to figure out why that axle was there, and calculated several possibilities of where that elusive northeast corner axle would be located. I am not sure if that axle found was supposed to be a corner, or was it was set there at a bend in the east line with a missing deed call that continued in a northerly direction going to another possible northeast corner. That bend would calculate to be about a 1-1/2 degree bend for a distance of about 270 feet to a point that is on the east end of the parallel north line at the deed distance of 972 feet from the axle found on the northwest corner. There is a possibility that this missing axle may still be there to mark the northeast corner as timber harvesting operations may not have destroyed that corner. Those axles are substantial corner markers that were driven down to just above ground level, and measure 1-1/2" diameter by four feet long and have a hub on the end. I plan to go out and try one more solution: hold the north line parallel to the south line and go the deed distance along that line and look for a possible northeast corner axle. The distances from the northwest corner to the POB corner closely matches the deed calls, and my line going from the POB corner to the southwest corner can be reproduced when holding the southeast corner marker and POB marker. That is how I found the disturbed axle on the southwest corner. Another problem is the acreage: IF I find the missing northeast corner axle and include that possible missing deed call, then the deed acreage calculates 6.32 acres, not 6.75 acres, more or less. I still cannot reconcile the east line distance of 342 feet with the found axle at 148 feet and the location of the northeast corner axle as called for in the deed. Combined, those two distances will be 417 feet as compared to 342 feet. The deed bearings are out by about 5 degrees as compared to grid bearings. One of my methods was to ignore (?) the found axle north of the southeast corner and do a distance-distance intersect from the southeast axle found and the northwest axle found and try to utilize the deed as written assuming no call was left out. This method does not make the north line parallel to the south line, and the acreage calculates to be 5.44 acres, which is about 1.31 acres short. The church is supposed to have 11 acres of land (4.25 acres + 6.75 acres) and it is accepted by all that the first parcel lies to the north of and is contiguous with the second parcel. I cannot explain why this is the consideration, but the adjacent landowner and church all agree to that there is an 11 acre total parcel of land that belongs to the church, and the first parcel does not encompass the existing church and cemetery. Perplexing, to say the least. Of note, both descriptions are 330 feet wide. Coincidence, or deliberate? I think the second deed was intended to make the parcel deeper east and west to include the expanded cemetery, but that is not what is generally considered by the church. The county tax maps show two parcels for 11 acres, and that is what is expected from my survey. Even if I find another axle on the northeast corner, then the total acreage will be about 10.57 acres, which could meet the "more or less" total condition of 11 acres.
What are your thoughts and considerations?
Wow that is a mess and this might not help at all because I do not know what STR means but part of the problem might be in the deed description. So just for grins if you change STR to SEC28 for the 1859 deed and SEC27 for the 1963 deed, then that puts the SE.QTR up against the POB for the SW.QTR if that even helps or is a possibility.
Like you said, the 1963 deed does not close by 75 feet but the error is north/south. Then I assumed that the surveyor did actually close on the POB with the same SE bearing (meaning his field angles were good and 57.2' is hard to screw up) so I calc'd a new point N22-30W at 57.2' from the POB. Then I did a brg-brg intersection using the deed bearings from my new point and the deed point at the end of the 2nd call N47E 809'. The results were North 422' and S47W 982' with area 6.35 acres. That North 422' might be a place to search for the NE corner and then S47W 10'.
I actually love these treasure hunts and these axels are the best for finding with our trusty Schoenstedts.
Love boundary puzzles.
Interesting post, I'd love to hear about your final resolution and how you arrived at it.
I believe STR = Section Township Range
@lurker "I believe STR = Section Township Range"
Thanks, great info. Knowing the STR numbers will determine if the SE QTR fits against the SW QTR POB.
A few clarifications and notes:
1. STR = Section, Township, and Range. The old deed "....lies in the SW 1/4....", and the second deed commences at the concrete monument and has three calls going to the axle POB. The deed 11 acre parcel lies in the South Half of the SW 1/4 of the section.
2. I found the two axles on the northwest corners: the POB axle and the one N22°30'W-57.2' away, undisturbed. Mr. Schonstedt squealed!
3. Observations from Landbutcher's reply post: 892 feet (deed) visually looks similar to 922 feet (calc'd) along the north boundary line. Same for 422 feet (calc'd) compared to 342' (deed) along the east line. Deed transcription numbers between survey and record are often transposed and/or misinterpreted. I have seen "minutes and seconds" angular nomenclature recorded as "feet and inches."
4. Here are my MS SPCS East Zone coordinates on the axles and commencing point monument for the second deed, (PNTO, N, E, Elev, DESC) format.
329,1639002.2104,954964.0150,464.1447,USA CONMON
337,1638503.8398,956060.8986,451.1994,TRUCK AXLE FOUND LEANED SSW
357,1638650.6892,956079.2023,444.2736,OLD AXLE SHAFT FOUND
358,1638343.0992,955322.2404,462.8087,AXLE FOUND
359,1638287.2393,955337.5853,463.1193,AXLE FOUND
Additional field work today to look for two possible positions at the elusive northeast axle set in 1963. I am still trying to figure out how to utilize the axle found 148 feet northerly of the southeast axle found. Using my two new points to look for on the northeast corner, I miss that 148-foot axle. It has got to come into play somehow......
Here is what I get using your coordinates. I held the bearing (358-359). I held the bearing (337-357). I turned DEED angle at 357 for bearing (337-361) and did BRG-BRG to calc 361. I used bearing (337-357) from 337 and bearing (361-337) from 358 to calc 360. The 4 angles and 3 distances look close but the east distance is way off deed. The only way I can see that this distance got this bad is the crew wanted to go 148' from 337 for some special reason to set a POL. The distance was over 100 feet and in the past I would divide those kinds of distances in half so the chainmen would just go the same distance 2 times. Half of 148' is 74' and whoever calc the remainder to get the rest of the 342' measured subtracted that 74' because it was in their mind. 342' - 74' is 268' and the calc'd point 360 is 266.13' from 357.
All this is a lot of assumptions but it does give you places to look for those 2 missing axles.
Field report from 5/26/25. I calc'd and staked a "LOOK" point for my new northeast corner; not there after searching a wide area. I tried the deed distance on the east line going through the 148-foot axle and another point at the deed angle and distance from the southeast corner. Nothing there. I tried the north and south parallel line method using the deed angle at the southeast corner, throwing a deed distance error in the east line. My calc'd coordinates for my "LOOK" point were within the search area where Landbutcher calc'd a point (360). Another consideration was to look at the distance-distance intersection from the northwest corner and southeast corner. Not there, either. Considering there may be a bearing error in the north line and using the north line and east line distances as good, then the area is short, which is low on the list of the hierarchy in deed calls. There may very well be an area calculation error in the original deed, but unlikely. I still have a gut feeling that the original deed's intent (1963 survey) was to make the north and south lines parallel while holding the road frontage distance on the west side of 330 feet; then run parallel lines going east back to where it they figured to make the east line go north and south. Then, the calculation error would more than likely be on the east line. It still baffles me as to WHY that axle was placed at 148 feet on the east line. The only thing I can figure is that maybe it is a Point-On-Line (POL), and at an odd distance somehow: not at a midpoint. I looked in about 6+ possible locations in all, and walked around a bit, staking the deed angle line, hoping to get lucky. In 1963, the magnetic declination for this area was about 2-1/2° East, and the measured grid bearings are about 7° CW from the deed bearings. The convergence angle is only about -0°03' for this area, so I am not sure of the basis of bearing on the 1963 survey. The magnetic declination was about 7-1/2° East around 1832 when the Chickasaw Cession of lands were starting to be surveyed.
The 148-foot axle was sticking out of the ground about a foot, two others were at ground level, and one was buried a few inches. The southwest axle was laying on the back of the road ditch (disturbed). Those things weigh about 30 pounds each and are not easy to knock up. Timber skidders and bulldozers play havoc with survey markers. I wish I could find it.
I need some more thinking time before final decisions. I appreciate all the input. It is good to get more eyes on a problem to see if someone has a different approach, another idea, or to catch something overlooked. Thanks, guys!
Just curious, but what about adjoining properties? Do you plot up those deeds, tie corners and possession in and see where "their" lines/corners would be?
@gary_g - the rural adjacent property reads ".....the South Half of the Southwest Quarter......"less and except the property occupied by the.....church."
@gary_g - the rural adjacent property reads ".....the South Half of the Southwest Quarter......"less and except the property occupied by the.....church."
That's perfect!!!! Whatever you decide will be the less and except property.
My final solution:
The POB axle found at 359 was disturbed and leaning a little. I held to the other found axles at 358, 337, and 357 as good, solid points. I used a D-D intersect from the two axles found at 358 and 337 to create the SW corner by the road. This made the deed POB point #359 to be 0.11 feet off the line, but with a distance error of 57.93 feet compared to the deed distance of 57.3 feet. I held to the 330' road frontage distance as being the intent to create the southwest corner. I then held the north line parallel to the new south line as per the deed, and then held the axle at #357 as a POL on the east line. I then went from #337 through #357 toward a new intersection at the northeast corner. This point ended up being within my old search area, and I did not find the axle there. I will stake this new point and look one more time. The distance error in the north line measured 981.80 feet compared to the deed distance of 972 feet. I will also look (again) 9.80 feet westerly back along the north line to see if I find the axle at the deed distance of 972 feet. The distance error in the east line measured 423.98 feet compared to the deed 342 feet, creating a deed distance error of about 82 feet. The old deed did not close by about 74 feet. The distances used in the old 1963 survey were all (except one) measured to the nearest foot, and the bearings were recorded to the nearest half of a degree, including the three calls from the commencing point to the POB. As a side note, the "best fit" of the old survey matching up with some of the found axles going back to the commencing point produced about a 2-foot westerly difference from the found monument at #329. In 1963, the surveyor probably used a magnetic compass and maybe a 100-foot steel tape, and I am retracing this survey using a JAVAD GNSS base and rover system with a UHF radio or a cellular network, depending on my reception. I am surrounded by hills, tall pines, and leafy trees with thick underbrush, and it sometimes takes a few minutes to get a fix. My system can collect a point for post-processing later during the data-gathering stage of initial field work. I had decent reception during this survey and can RTK any points that I set. The distance to my base is less than 1,000 feet. This has been a challenging survey, to say the least. I appreciate the input, everyone. This should wrap up this job if I don't find that elusive missing axle on or near my new northeast corner.
Great job Harold.
Can you get your survey drawing into the chain of title there?
That should make it record going forward.
The distance error in the east line measured 423.98 feet compared to the deed 342 feet,
Wow, That look like the numbers were transcribed wrong.
Well I am like a dog on a bone with this deed today. That east distance could be transcribed like @gary_g said but that 423 feet just bugged me. So I threw out the POB just to do a new calc. The last call was a check in to the POB at 57.3' at S22-30E so I assumed a coord at #1 and backed up N22-30W 57.3' to #5 and started running the deed from there. S22-30E 272.7' to #2, Then N47-00E 809' to #3 and inversed back to #5 for a distance of 757.84'. Then I inversed the measured points (337-358) for a distance of 755.95' and looky there, less than 2 feet difference. So I rotated my 3 deed points at #3 to match the bearing from (337-358) of S77-43-23W. The I used the deed angle off #2 at #3 for N11-01-33 342' to #4. Then I inversed #5 and again, a surprise, the bearing is within 17 minutes of being parallel with the south line but the distance is out 25' and the area is only 5.1 acres BUT @harold, you did not find axels at the other search points so here are 3 new search coords 363, 365, 366.
I have no idea if this will help and the found points at 359 and 357 do not fit anymore but all 4 deed angles fit again and 3 sides are at deed distance so maybe this will help you find at least 1 more axel.
Sooooooooooo, are we all gonna meet for Lunch and walk the site when done ? ! 😀 😀
Just a though, but one time I figured out a boundary when I looked at the bearings of the building. I took a stab that the building was built parallel to the boundary line.
And people think boundary surveys cost too much....
I appreciate the extra work and your thought-provoking analytical responses. They gave me a few more perspectives on boundary problem solutions like this one.
I returned late yesterday from the jobsite without finding that elusive axle. I believe it was destroyed sometime during the past 20 years, probably during the last timber harvesting operations by the adjoining landowner. Without any clear timber lines in that area, it was not possible to find a timber line delineation between the two properties in that area. It looked like they gave it a wide berth going around the northeast corner to stay clear of an unmarked corner. I searched at my point and in a wide circle with the maglocator without getting a squeal. I did find an old stumphole that put me on the ground, and some unused briars. And the mosquitoes are now well fed. Such is the life of a surveyor! Thanks again, everyone.