This is addressed to Massachusetts surveyors who have experience with Land Court surveys.
Northeasterly by said Chestnut Street, one hundred fifty (150) feet, more or less;
Northwesterly by land?únow or formerly of John B. Harriman and Elizabeth W. Harriman as the stone wall stands, six hundred seventy-eight and 11/l00 (678.11) feet;
Southwesterly by land now or formerly of Margaret Clark Howe et al as the stone wall stands, one hundred fifty (150) feet, more or less;
Southeasterly by land now or formerly of Margaret Clark Howe et al, said line being parallel with the northwesterly boundary line and 150 feet southeasterly therefrom a distance of seven hundred (700) feet, more or less.
The above bounding description abuts Harriman on the northwest. Harriman's property has a confirmation registration dated January 1951 and received at the registry of deeds August 6,1951. It was prepared under the old instructions. The above description was recorded December 3, 1951. The survey shows a drill hole at one end of a wall and an iron pipe at the other end. Both monuments have been recovered. The wall meanders in and out by as much as two feet. it is a typical New England stonewall with numerous obvious angle points.
The question: 150' parallel to the wall or to the straight line shown on the Land Court plan?
Hack
Th
Well as it's written it would be parallel to the northwesterly boundary which would be the wall, but if the wall is straight within a couple of feet, do you think you could just assume a straight line? I don't know. I'll be interested to see other answers.
Hack, post: 442768, member: 708 wrote:
Southeasterly by land now or formerly of Margaret Clark Howe et al,
Wouldn't this call if there is evidence of it supersede the parallel call regardless?
You're not parallel to anything, you're parallel with it, i.e., parallel with, perpendicular to.
were taught that land court is gospel, but it sucks in situations like this. Do you offset the line 150 from the two monuments and show the LC line to follow the wall? Without all the info, my gut says yes. Having surveyed miles of old farm land, saying the abutters own small strips on the either side of the wall doesn't sit right with me.
I'm curious on what you decide.
Tom Adams, post: 442776, member: 7285 wrote: Well as it's written it would be parallel to the northwesterly boundary which would be the wall, but if the wall is straight within a couple of feet, do you think you could just assume a straight line? I don't know. I'll be interested to see other answers.
Tom
The reason I mentioned 'Massachusetts guys" is that until 2006 the Land Court held dimension over monuments. In this case they is no doubt the boundary per the Court is a straight line between the DH and IP. The issue is whether it's 150' from that straight line or 150' from a meandering line parallel with the wall. It differs by 2' in some places.
linebender, post: 442781, member: 449 wrote: Wouldn't this call if there is evidence of it supersede the parallel call regardless?
I should have mentioned Howe is the grantor in the deed and this deed is the first deed out of a large parcel.
Straight line as per the Land Court Plan, especially because you have found the drill hole and pipe.
Curious, you have made no mention of how the more recent deeds out of Margaret Clark Howe describe the same line?
Paul in PA
I'm not from MA, but my gut is telling me that it is from the Drill hole and the pipe even though they are not mentioned in the description. I think my ultimate decision would depend on two things:
1 - Does the 'average' location of the wall follow that line from pipe to DH? Like that straight line kind of looks like a best fit line for the wall.
2 - Does the distance between the DH and the pipe measure close to 678.11'?
If those are true then I would use the line between those two points offset 150'.
Paul in PA, post: 442949, member: 236 wrote: Straight line as per the Land Court Plan, especially because you have found the drill hole and pipe.
Curious, you have made no mention of how the more recent deeds out of Margaret Clark Howe describe the same line?
Paul in PA
The line is described in the next deed out from Howe as part of a bounding description. "Northwesterly by land now or formerly of Carey , about 700 feet". Carey is the grantee in our deed.
Dan Patterson, post: 442952, member: 1179 wrote: I'm not from MA, but my gut is telling me that it is from the Drill hole and the pipe even though they are not mentioned in the description. I think my ultimate decision would depend on two things:
1 - Does the 'average' location of the wall follow that line from pipe to DH? Like that straight line kind of looks like a best fit line for the wall.
2 - Does the distance between the DH and the pipe measure close to 678.11'?
If those are true then I would use the line between those two points offset 150'.
Not sure what you mean by average but from the center of the wall to the line the largest offset is 2.5'
The distance is balls on. As my first crew chief in 1974 used to say.
By average I meant that it looks like the best fit line of the wall. Kind of like this:
Sounds like you got it figured out.
We have plenty of rocks but darned few walls made out of them that are still standing.
Hack, post: 442940, member: 708 wrote: Tom
The reason I mentioned 'Massachusetts guys" is that until 2006 the Land Court held dimension over monuments. In this case they is no doubt the boundary per the Court is a straight line between the DH and IP. The issue is whether it's 150' from that straight line or 150' from a meandering line parallel with the wall. It differs by 2' in some places.
Isn't the wall itself a monument? And isn't the call along that monument?
"Northwesterly by land?únow or formerly of John B. Harriman and Elizabeth W. Harriman as the stone wall stands, six hundred seventy-eight and 11/l00 (678.11) feet;"
I'm not arguing, really, and I know I'm out of my element. Just trying to understand. You're saying the land court would hold two uncalled for monuments over a called-for wall?
Tom Adams, post: 442985, member: 7285 wrote: Isn't the wall itself a monument? And isn't the call along that monument?
"Northwesterly by land?únow or formerly of John B. Harriman and Elizabeth W. Harriman as the stone wall stands, six hundred seventy-eight and 11/l00 (678.11) feet;"I'm not arguing, really, and I know I'm out of my element. Just trying to understand. You're saying the land court would hold two uncalled for monuments over a called-for wall?
Yes Tom. Prior to 2006 the Land Court held dimensions over called for monuments. I don't think that anyone familiar with LC work here in Mass. would argue that the boundary is currently the wall. If you were to reopen the case, perhaps for a resubdivision, the Court may allow you to hold the wall under the 2006 manual. I know it is counter intuitive for surveyors but nevertheless that's what we dealt with until 2006.
