AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Road and RR as "natural and controlling" monuments??

6 Posts
5 Users
0 Reactions
816 Views
JB
 JB
(@jb)
Posts: 793
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I am working on a survey of a couple of small tracts in a block first described in 1891. Many of the other deeds in the block are described as being perpendicular and parallel (normal) to a RR's centerline. I located the RR and the street which forms the sideline of the subject so I have it bracketed North to South. The sideline street is not normal to the RR per an old record plat of the adjoining block that's ok, I have the r/w established by the location of the street and backed up by pins that match up within inches of the street r/w.
So I'm setting up the block normal to the RR and found some pins on adjoining lotas which seem to support that call. When I examine the deed for my subject, it describes a parallogram rather than a rectangle.
In past discussions with other surveyors and in seminar excercises, Road R/W and such are treated (in NC anyway) as natural monuments and are therefore the highest order of monument.

My questions:
1)Am I wrong to disregard the deed call which is at an angle to the RR in favor of a line that is normal to the RR? The deed call would appear to make this the only lot in the block which is not square to the RR.

2)In the 1891 deed the call to my corner reads "397' from the center of the RR tracks". Can a call with no bearing be assumed the be normal the the called-for centerline?

Losing sleep on this one, any thoughts appreciated!!


 
Posted : September 14, 2010 9:34 am
foggyidea
(@foggyidea)
Posts: 3462
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

heh heh heh... you said "inches."

yes, and then no for your questions. If I recall them correctly.

How can you ever ignore a deed call? i am sure that some weight is going to be given to that deed call.

And I would never ASSUME that a call is perpendicular unless it is stated in the description in some fashion..

There is nothing wrong with not being square to the row's, and obviously the abutting lot lines that you share will not be square either, if you hold the deed calls. Do the abutting deeds agree with your clients deed?

There isn't enough info for me to make a recommendation beyond "Don't assume anything!"


 
Posted : September 14, 2010 9:41 am
Ed
 Ed
(@ed)
Posts: 363
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

If I understand correctly, if you hold the the "regular" adjoiners' calls you find pins that conflict with them but follow a "non-regular" deed that you're trying to follow? Wow, if that's the case it is a tough one. Especially if there is no evidence of possession. Sounds like someone is "losing" on one side or the other, but no one gains on the other. Every time I've dealt with these problems there was some possession thing going on and some lawyer just shat a bad description into it all.

Good luck and let us know how it turns out.

Take care,
Ed


 
Posted : September 14, 2010 10:11 am
Mike Falk
(@mike-falk)
Posts: 300
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Perpendicular to "which" RR centerline?


 
Posted : September 14, 2010 10:11 am
JB
 JB
(@jb)
Posts: 793
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I have a pdf if anyone is interested in having a look.
Email in profile is good.
THX


 
Posted : September 14, 2010 10:16 am

Guest
(@guest)
Posts: 1651
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

when you say lot and block I'm looking for a plat? What does it indicate for shapes? You are making it sound as though these "lots" are m&b parcels and not being deeded off as lots of a plat (subdivision). If the parcel descriptions have been granted by m&b with no reference to a plat then juniorsenior rights can become a consideration. And then there is always the evidence on the ground to indicate intent. That old call from the railroad is one of those that can mean whatever the evidence on the ground supports.


 
Posted : September 22, 2010 4:25 am