AI Assistant

Notifications

Clear all

Old Church and Cemetery survey

Harold · 2025-05-03T18:44:24Z

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 t...

Summarize Topic

Page 2 / 2 Prev

Strictly Surveying

Last Post by GaryG 1 year ago

24 Posts

8 Users

22 Reactions

3,445 Views

RSS

Landbutcher464MHz

(@landbutcher464mhz)

Posts: 222

Member

Translate ▼

Well that is a bummer that you did not find at least 1 more axel but it was a good exercise in trying to figure out what the hell that surveyor actually did running out that deed. Hopefully better luck next time.

Posted : May 7, 2025 8:43 pm

GaryG

(@gary_g)

Posts: 902

Member

Translate ▼

What a fun looking site to work on. I would love to see the final bounary plat/resolution.

Attachment : image.png

Posted : May 8, 2025 8:12 am

NotSoMuch

(@notsomuch)

Posts: 367

Member

Translate ▼

This is a situation where a boundary agreement amongst the landowners is appropriate. There can't be an argument that not enough boundary research was done.

Posted : May 9, 2025 7:28 am

GaryG

(@gary_g)

Posts: 902

Member

Translate ▼

Posted by: @notsomuch

↑

This is a situation where a boundary agreement amongst the landowners is appropriate. There can't be an argument that not enough boundary research was done.

IDK if I think the boundary set represents the deeds then I there would be no need. I'm sue i you walked the adjoiner around with the client, showing them the lines and corners, everyone would be happy.

Posted : May 9, 2025 11:54 am

Page 2 / 2 Prev

26 Forums
54.5 K Topics
592.1 K Posts
264 Online
16.9 K Members

Forum Icons: Forum contains no unread posts Forum contains unread posts

Topic Icons: Not Replied Replied Active Hot Sticky Unapproved Solved Private Closed

Old Church and Cemetery survey

Please support our supporters!

Our Policies

Quick Links

Support