So the Deed says......

I think a "lot" would be a proportionment measurement, regardless of what some deed calls out what the distance "is". It is part of a simultaneous conveyance, being a lot in a section. If it was monumented, and the monuments have been accepted and relied upon, I would be hard-pressed not to accept where the monuments were set. If a surveyor has a "measured" distance, I would think that would be a more accurate measurement than the original deed-called-for (theoretical) distance.

I am not sure how well I am explaining my opinion, and maybe I don't quite understand the situation, but that is what I am thinking.

Tom

You've found harmony in both the 1982 legal and evidence on the ground. These are footsteps of what came before and are to be considered. I'd suggest going back and looking more closely at all evidence for lot 3 perimeter, based on that proration.

> No found monuments mentioned to support a East line of Lot 3 on his plat.
>
> Old pipes were found to support the measured distances.

Why wouldn't you hold the monuments?

> It seems like someone went to a lot of trouble to define the East line of Lot 3 - probably past legal problems.
>

That is a good thing isn't it? Stability of boundaries?

> By just reading the legal I think you would hold the dimensions stated, it does not say the "go to the East line of Lot 3" but "the East line of lot 3 is....etc."
>

Sounds like the same thing to me.

> Normally you try to hold the controlling element of the legal, but this one is a little odd.
>

No. You the controlling element is the intent, which seems to be marked upon the ground. Monuments normally control over measurements.

> What do you think ? It's hard to explain on the plat why I didn't follow the legal.

It would be even harder, on the witness stand, explaining why you held measurements over monuments.

Question

This would not appear to conform to an aliquot part. Is Lot 3 merely one of several created simultaneously out of the NE4 of Section 36? Do the measurements provided match up with a certain number of rods and links as they definitely weren't using EDM's or GPS in the days of creation of the lots?

Question

Lot 3 was on of three lots in the NE 1/4 of Section 36.

What I am saying is that it seems odd to me for someone to explicity state the location of the East line of Lot 3. It seems that someone wants this to be the controlling measurement. The legal doesn't state "Start at the East Line of Lot 3", but "the East line of Lot 3 is 1546.70 West etc."

By the way there is even an earlier subdivision (1920's) that puts this line at 1540.44 feet west and states for this corner "Found old iron pipe 0.34' west"

So I quess it's either going to be 1540.44, 1546.70 or 1548.05. and yes, there is about a 6 foot problem between pipe East of this lot.

As I said, I am leaning to holding the line as monumented, but the legal makes me think about it.

So,

1848 plat of lot 3 with no particular location info.

Sometime after that a deed with distance mentioned but no info on where it came from, and no monuments mentioned (scaled from plat maybe). The distance mentioned is a tie distance and not a part of the parcel description. The description is of a portion of lot 3 (wherever that lot turns out to be located).

1950 survey shows measured tie distance differing slightly from record (no monuments mentioned)

1982 survey shows measured tie distance same as 1950 (no monuments mentioned)

Today - monuments found that agree with both known surveys.

There are a lot of unknowns here, but just from this info, the preponderance of evidence surely is in favor of the monuments as the original location of the parcel boundary.

The measured distances are now monumented (not known for how long), and have a pedigree dating to 1950 with no change.

The deed tie distance begins with no controlling legal force over any other call in the deed. It has no pedigree; we don't know where it came from. It could be that the existing NE corner and the existing E 1/4 corner are not where they were when the deed in question was written. Why don't you use the pipes and reset the two last mentioned corners? This would also allow you to show that record is the same as measured.

I don't know, just some thoughts.

And, now I see we have evidence of a pipe in existence in 1920's. Not too surprising and may well be the very same as the one there today. In any event, it is conclusive evidence that you are required to perform a retracement if you can find a fair degree of evidence to do so. Throw out that deed tie distance immediately, it means nothing now.

The 1950 survey is a part of lots 1 and 2 - no dimensional info in the legal description --- so we can go out there and use the monuments found or prorate the section to get to the west line of lot 2 or east line of lot 3

The 1982 survey/subdivision has the same basic legal - telling me where the east line of lot 3 is located. It's odd to specifically say where the line is. This must be from some prior survey or disagreement. The record distance is 11.67 chains for both lots 1 and 2 = 1540.44 - lot 3 is 26.66 chains - by the way the section is a perfect 80 chains according to the 1848 survey.

Both of these we done by the same surveyor - so did he find out he made a mistake in 1950 and is trying to cover it in 1982 ?

> Both of these we done by the same surveyor - so did he find out he made a mistake in 1950 and is trying to cover it in 1982 ?

No, he probably measured better in 1982 than he did in 1950, which is to be expected.