?ÿ@dmyhill I'm up to Page 11.
He has a beef with the Matthews case which I found on goolge and read.?ÿ That case is correct and very basic statement of the rule.?ÿ He says there is no justification, what??ÿ There is plenty of justification.?ÿ The Plat goes to the east-west centerline of section.?ÿ There is no 60 foot wide strip owned by Parker, it is ficticious.?ÿ A surveyor's distance mistake does not create parcels out of thin air.
He is trying to write a boundary treatise in 31 pages.?ÿ It is complicated but some of his suggestions so far would be bad rules.?ÿ He thinks the Federal rules should be chucked in the round file because land owners don't know about them.?ÿ Ignorance of the law is no excuse is the rule since Roman times.?ÿ Might as well chuck the hole law library into the dumpster, not needed anymore.
@dmyhill?ÿ
The first sentence is interesting.?ÿ
"The rule of monument control in boundary law provides that visible "monuments" or landmarks on the ground will control over the courses and distances in the deed."
The monuments have to be visible?
What does that say about buried monuments, and monuments buried purposely to be not visible?
He is trying to write a boundary treatise in 31 pages.?ÿ
Dave: that is a polite summary.
?ÿ
