Evan Your Statement On EXCEPT Descriptions Is Wrong
"Under those conditions, a description which described the 1000' parcel EXCEPT for the easterly 500' describes the exact same intent as a description which reads the westerly 500' of the 1000' parcel or an explicit call to the 1960 survey or its monuments."
The EXCEPT description binds the second parcel to the first parcel. The decription of the "West 500'" does not.
Jones must signify in words the "intent" to bind West to East.
Paul in PA
I don't believe the answer could be expressed any more succinctly yet be so correct.
> No survey is performed but the 1960 irons are pointed out to Westerly.
Very clear to me: I would hold the irons.
Questions to all the "throw the irons out" crowd: Do you "fix" every survey and description up to today? On a lot and block in a platted subdivision, do you "check" that the subdivision exterior is correct? What if the subdivision exterior doesn't match the description? Is the whole subdivision "off"?
If not, how is this scenerio any different? What if the easterly 500 feet was subdivided into a 25 lot subdivision?
Paul, You are still out of context
As a general rule, you are correct that the W 500' is not the same as the original parcel except the E 500', but we rarely get to blindly apply only general rules to a situation, and this is one of them.
It is basic law that an agreement must be interpreted with respect to the facts and circumstances surrounding the agreement at the time the agreement was made. That is the context you must stay in to correctly discern the intent expressed by the terms of the agreement. If you do not, you are deliberately ignoring evidence necessary to locate the true boundary.
A surveying technician may know the general rule and can apply the general rule. A professional surveyor must know why the rule exists, when it is applicable, and what the exceptions to the rule are. The circumstances given in the OP quite clearly describe one such exception to the general rule you are so carelessly trying to apply.
If you're going to refute my statements, do so within context. Cut-n-paste of my sentence beginning with "Under these circumstances..." does not provide the context, it merely signifies that there is a particular context to consider.
You still need to do better, Paul. I know it requires more abstract thinking than an engineering problem where you look up the specs and plug them into a design, or look up a predetermined coefficient and plug it into a standard formula, but please try to keep up and to present complete arguments.
