"At times, the surveyor must determine whether he or she is retracing an "original survey" or a "first survey". Initially the surveyor must determine whether the creating surveyor actually ran the creating line and then reduced the survey to notes or the description was created on paper and then the surveyor subsequently placed that description on the ground. When a parcel or parcels are created on paper, without a survey being conducted, and the surveyor is later requested to place one of these paper-described parcels on the ground, this survey should be considered the "first" survey, in that it is the first survey to be placed on the ground after the description. The difference is that whereas the original survey controls, the first survey is nothing more than an opinion by the surveyor of where the written description should be placed. As such, it is always open to collateral attack."
This first appeared in the 3rd Edition of Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location, but the author(s) do not offer any direct support for this idea either in the form of case law, citations to statutes, or citations to other authoritative writings. I think that it is somewhat interesting that this appeared in the first edition that Curt Brown was not involved in.
I believe that this concept only holds true where the "first" survey was commissioned unilaterally by one affected party and the results of the survey are not accepted by another affected party. If a common boundary is established by both affected landowners jointly commissioning the survey, or if the subsequent actions of the party not involved in hiring the surveyor shows that they accepted the results as correctly marking the common line (i.e. they build a house at the minimum setback as measured from that line), then this "first" surveyor doctrine does not hold.
If one party causes the survey to be made, represents the resulting points as marking the property line to his adjoiner, who then builds a house at the minimum setback in reliance on that, the party hiring the surveyor would be estopped from being able to later claim that the true line was somewhere else. How would the law have two such incompatible doctrines for a nearly identical set of circumstances?
From what I've found, and I believe John Stahl has given this subject a deeper look and IIRC, has a presentation on it, there is no such distinction in law as a "first" survey or a "first" surveyor separate from that of an "original" survey or surveyor.
American Jurisprudence, Boundaries, å¤51 says:
In surveying a tract of land according to a former plat or survey, the surveyor's only duty is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the courses and lines at the same place where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground. In making the resurvey, the surveyor has the right to use the field notes of the original survey.
The object of a resurvey is to furnish proof of the location of the lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of or to control the original survey. The original survey in all cases must, whenever possible, be retraced, since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it. On a resurvey to establish lost boundaries, if the original corners can be found, the places where they were originally established are conclusive without regard to whether they were in fact correctly located. This rule is based on the premise that the stability of boundary lines is more important than minor inaccuracies or mistakes.
A resurvey not shown to have been based upon the original survey is inconclusive in determining boundaries and will ordinarily yield to a resurvey based upon known monuments and boundaries of the original survey. However, where it is shown that there are gross errors and mistakes in an older survey which render it unreliable, a more recent survey may be used.
Unlike the introduction of the "first" surveyor doctrine in EPBL where the "first" surveyor is distinguished from the "original" surveyor, Am Jur cites to a case for every statement made. The paragraph above (å¤51) has 8 sentences and footnotes to 7 cites.
The 2009 BLM Manual explains it a bit more clearly (å¤3-137, p. 74, 2nd column at end of 3rd paragraph):
The protracted position of the legal subdivision corner on the survey plat is merely the first step in fixing the position of a corner. The corner position is fixed by the running and marking of the lines.
This is in terms of the PLSS, but can easily be translated to read...
The described position of the parcel corner in the deed description is merely the first step in fixing the position of a corner. The corner position is fixed by the running and marking of the lines.
The principle holds true whether or not in the PLSS. Note also that the Manual states that it is normally the task of the local surveyor to subdivide the sections. But there are those, ignorant of the full discussion of the subdivision of sections who will take no notice of these principles, re-divide an already divided section and dispute the location of previously established corners. Similarly, being ignorant of the law that we are obliged to follow when re-establishing boundaries, they will determine where the corner "should be" according to dimensions in a deed description and either declare the evidence of the originally established boundary as wrong or they will take no notice of such evidence at all if it doesn't happen to be in the form of an iron pipe, stake, or some other object set by a surveyor.
When surveyors recognize and reject the boundaries established by a so-called "first" surveyor, they justify it because the description did not call for the survey and/or because the survey was performed after the description was written. The jurisdiction that I work in, and most others that I've looked at, don't reject the locations of boundaries identified by a survey on either of these facts alone, or even both together unless there are other circumstances to indicate that it was a unilateral establishment by one landowner and that there was never an acceptance of and/or reliance on the results by the other affected landowners.
Can anyone point me toward one or more cases where this distinction of "first" surveyor from "original" surveyor has been given any credibility or where the principle was the only or a major factor in support of the final decision?
Evan, I'm going to read the whole post in a bit, but to answer the question...
There is a case that describes the 'first surveyor' (I have it at the office) and I believe Brown cites it in E&P...Lucas does for sure in PE. It's more related to the genesis of the idea though.
I'll post it tomorrow AM if someone doesn't beat me to it.
11 C.J.S. Boundaries å¤124. Resurvey:
The essential rule governing resurvey is to follow the steps of the first surveyor; and, a resurvey not shown to have been
based upon the original survey is inconclusive in determining boundaries.The essential rule governing resurvey is to follow the steps of the first surveyor; 1 and, a resurvey not shown to have been based
upon the original survey is inconclusive in determining boundaries. 2 A precisely accurate resurvey cannot defeat ownership
rights flowing from the original grant and the boundaries originally marked off. 3 Thus, a boundary line established by an
unrecorded plat will control over a subsequent survey purporting to accurately locate the boundary line, if the original survey
lines can be located and determined, 4 even if the original boundary line was not entirely accurate, as in making a resurvey the
question is not where an entirely accurate survey would locate the lines, but where did the original survey locate such lines. 5
In the same vein, when an original survey results in a property description used by the owner to transfer title to the property,
that survey controls over all subsequent surveys attempting to locate the same line. 6A resurvey not shown to have been based upon the original survey will ordinarily yield to a resurvey based upon known
monuments and boundaries of the original survey. 7 Only where it becomes impossible for a second surveyor to find the prior
survey where the boundaries were established by the first surveyor does the second survey turn to the courses, distances, and
still-existent monuments to determine the boundaries. 8 Where a prior, reliable survey has been performed, the duty of the
second surveyor is to find where the corners were placed, right or wrong, where they can be found, and then to relocate the
original lines and corners at the places established, and the resurveyor should not run new lines, even where the first are full
of errors. 9A resurvey which locates lines in accordance with a recorded plat will prevail over a resurvey not in accordance with such
plat. 10 However, a resurvey based upon an original survey which is erroneous is not controlling, 11 and where an original
survey is erroneous and a new corrective survey is made, the new survey controls. 12
Footnotes:
1 OhioÛÓOwens v. Haunert, 137 Ohio App. 3d 507, 739 N.E.2d 5 (12th Dist. Clermont County 2000).
2 Fla.ÛÓTyson v. Edwards, 433 So. 2d 549 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1983).
Mich.ÛÓWasson v. Campbell, 277 Mich. 286, 269 N.W. 176 (1936).
N.M.ÛÓPacheco v. Martinez, 97 N.M. 37, 636 P.2d 308 (Ct. App. 1981).
3 U.S.ÛÓU.S. v. Doyle, 468 F.2d 633 (10th Cir. 1972).
4 Fla.ÛÓWillis v. Campbell, 500 So. 2d 300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1986).
5 Fla.ÛÓWillis v. Campbell, 500 So. 2d 300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1986).
6 Fla.ÛÓRivers v. Lozeau, 539 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1989).
7 Mich.ÛÓWasson v. Campbell, 277 Mich. 286, 269 N.W. 176 (1936).
Mont.ÛÓBuckley v. Laird, 158 Mont. 483, 493 P.2d 1070 (1972).
8 OhioÛÓOwens v. Haunert, 137 Ohio App. 3d 507, 739 N.E.2d 5 (12th Dist. Clermont County 2000).
9 OhioÛÓOwens v. Haunert, 137 Ohio App. 3d 507, 739 N.E.2d 5 (12th Dist. Clermont County 2000).
10 IowaÛÓJackson v. Snyder, 202 Iowa 262, 208 N.W. 321 (1926).
Mich.ÛÓWasson v. Campbell, 277 Mich. 286, 269 N.W. 176 (1936).
Rights of purchaser relying on original plat
The rights of a purchaser of land who relies on a recorded plat of an original survey cannot be affected by one claiming under an
amended plat based on a subsequent erroneous survey.
Colo.ÛÓLundquist v. Eisenmann, 87 Colo. 584, 290 P. 277 (1930).
11 Cal.ÛÓMiller v. Cuelho, 90 Cal. 549, 27 P. 530 (1891).
Unreliability of earlier surveys
Although a survey establishing boundaries should generally retrace the results of earlier surveys, such need not be the case where
the earlier surveys are not proven reliable.
OhioÛÓOwens v. Haunert, 137 Ohio App. 3d 507, 739 N.E.2d 5 (12th Dist. Clermont County 2000).
12 Mo.ÛÓMengel v. Leach, 226 S.W. 883 (Mo. 1920).
Would it not come from common law, which holds that long continued use of land can give title to it? What would be the best proof of long continued use but survey pins on two ends of a line and better yet a historical fence between the two pins. I think Stalh would argue that the fence without the pins would be the boundary line if the owner(s) placed it with the intent of the fence marking the original boundary. So if the public trusted the Land Survey profession to set property corners why would we as surveyors not trust their work and follow in their footsteps? My 2 cents, hope to read more good discussion. Jp
eapls2708, post: 367996, member: 589 wrote: Can anyone point me toward one or more cases where this distinction of "first" surveyor from "original" surveyor has been given any credibility or where the principle was the only or a major factor in support of the final decision?
Texas law is full of instances where the matter in dispute is the proper location of some boundary that was originally protracted on paper. Most of the land grants in West Texas fall into that category. The fact that some surveyor placed markers purporting to locate the protracted survey generally has fallen to the proper construction of original scheme.
I'd think that "First Surveyor" is merely an attempt to conflate some attempt to put a protracted boundary upon the ground with an original survey referenced in the conveyance that actually created the boundary in question. The two, of course, are in completely separate categories.
Doesn't the original edition of Clarke deal with the question of establishment of protracted boundaries by survey without using the misleading term "First Survey"?
The reasoning as I understand it is there is only discussion of two types of Surveys; original surveys and retracing surveys. Therefore if there is already a Survey then it must be the original survey so the next survey is a retracing survey. No case that I have found explains it that way. First, most legal issues, especially fact questions are not black and white. We want them to be black and white but they aren't. Second, the Courts seem to look to what the parties actually did.
If the grantor laid out the boundaries and put the grantee in possession inside of marked boundaries then the court will enforce the boundaries so established (see Bullard v. Kempff, 119 Cal. 9 (1897), 50 P. 780). One thing I have noticed is that the Courts don't say whether the tracts are subdivision lots or metes and bounds parcels in the 19th century original boundary cases such as Bullard, Diehl v. Zanger 39 Mich. 601 (1878), and Kaiser v. Dalto, 140 Cal. 167 (1903); I conclude they must have not considered how the parcel was created to be relevant. What is relevant is what the parties actually did and accepted.
If the first survey occurred and there is no notice of its existence then it probably won't control. Notice can occur in the form of calling for the survey or monuments in the Deed description or it can occur when the parties have actual notice of the survey and act upon it. If a Surveyor set monuments and the owners used them for fencing and building construction then that will likely raise the survey to original survey status.
Jp7191, post: 368009, member: 1617 wrote: Would it not come from common law, which holds that long continued use of land can give title to it? What would be the best proof of long continued use but survey pins on two ends of a line and better yet a historical fence between the two pins. I think Stalh would argue that the fence without the pins would be the boundary line if the owner(s) placed it with the intent of the fence marking the original boundary. So if the public trusted the Land Survey profession to set property corners why would we as surveyors not trust their work and follow in their footsteps? My 2 cents, hope to read more good discussion. Jp
Generally, the common law scheme that arose in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was:
1. Follow the rules of construction to place in order to ascertain the location of the boundary. Uncalled for monuments generally don't control under the rules of construction, for example.
2. If the original boundary was lost, monuments are in use which are not called for in the Deed, or the boundary is not the same as called for in the Deed, and the other requirements are met then the boundary is considered established under one of the establishment doctrines. The Courts in some states are less willing to enforce established boundaries then they were 150 years ago.
The Courts did not actually run the process like that. What would happen is, if the parties had a dispute about what the description conveyed then the plaintiff would sue under number 1. On the other hand, in some cases the plaintiff would skip number 1 and sue to quiet title under number 2, e.g. acquiescence. The defendant may raise an establishment doctrine as a defense too.
Since the Courts seem to not favor number 2 for ill-considered reasons then we are left to try to pound the round peg into the square hole in some cases in order to avoid an injustice. The California Courts have largely gone to treating boundary location as a fact question and are, for the most part, allowing the trial courts to figure it out. When these cases make it to appeal, they don't get published because they are either fact cases or the case deals with the Agreed Boundary doctrine and the Court doesn't rock the legal boat.
JBrinkworth - The cases that are discussed in nearby content of EPBL all have some important extrinsic fact that the case turned on such as the after-deed establishment was unilateral rather than a mutual act of the affected landowners, the surveyor did not utilize controlling elements, or the boundary had already been established by some non-record act and no direct evidence of the corners (mons/stakes) remained, etc. They give no case that hinged specifically on whether the survey was specifically called for or occurred after the description. There is always some other significant factor involved.
I'll have to take a look in PE when I get home.
Dave - CJS and AM Jur state the principles nearly identically. Some of those in the CJS section are in other sections nearby to å¤51 in Am Jur.
JP7191 - You are equating discrepancies between the description and the boundary location as retraced from a "first" survey performed after the deed with an unwritten conveyance. That can happen when the first survey for which there is any record conflicts with a previously established boundary location for which no record exists. It could be that there was an earlier survey by which the boundaries were first established and then accepted/recognized by the affected landowners, or that the original landowners themselves had established the boundary where they intended it to be. Either way, that earliest survey for which any record can be found wouldn't necessarily be the "first" survey. Earliest record doesn't necessarily equate to earliest survey.
If however, there was a survey performed sometime after the description was written and it truly was the first time anyone attempted to place or identify the boundaries on the ground, if it was a mutual act by the affected landowners or if it was a unilateral act by one but accepted, relied upon by the other, and done in good faith, then it is an original establishment of the boundary.
The conveyance document creates the parcel. The on-the-ground establishment by the first person(s) authorized to do so creates the boundaries.
Kent - In those cases, were there other factors involved such as fraud, gross error, the surveyor having not begun from the proper controlling corners, having deviated significantly from proper methods, or having ignored some evidence of a previous establishment? Do any rest wholly on the timing of the survey as compared to the deed or protraction?
"Can anyone point me toward one or more cases where this distinction of "first" surveyor from "original" surveyor has been given any credibility or where the principle was the only or a major factor in support of the final decision? "
I certainly have not found any authoritative source of the "first surveyor doctrine" as outlined in the treatises (and, as expected, blindly followed by many, many surveyors). I have spent many hours looking, and would be appreciative if the "source" was found.
"The original survey in all cases must, whenever possible, be retraced, since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it. On a resurvey to establish lost boundaries, if the original corners can be found, the places where they were originally established are conclusive without regard to whether they were in fact correctly located. This rule is based on the premise that the stability of boundary lines is more important than minor inaccuracies or mistakes."
What I have found also, is that too many surveyors read the above principle and skip the most important phase it contains: "... since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it." In other words, there are circumstances in which even the "original survey" and "original monuments" cannot be held as controlling if the land owners haven't blessed them at some point.
eapls2708, post: 368020, member: 589 wrote: Kent - In those cases, were there other factors involved such as fraud, gross error, the surveyor having not begun from the proper controlling corners, having deviated significantly from proper methods, or having ignored some evidence of a previous establishment? Do any rest wholly on the timing of the survey as compared to the deed or protraction?
Generally, the cases fall into several categories:
- the subsequent survey having been made without authority to establish the boundary in question (typical where State-owned lands or mineral estates are involved),
- the subsequent attempt to put the protracted scheme upon the ground had been inconsistent with some important element of the original scheme (as, for example, where a surveyor ran course and distance without making proper allowance for the variance of certain lines in the orginal scheme),
- the subsequent survey had not been equitable (as for example, neglecting to take shortage and excess into account),
- the subsequent survey had made some other significant error.
All of the above would be weighed in determining whether some originally protracted boundary had been established in some particular position by virtue of a survey having been made. In Texas case law, usually something more valuable than the land itself was at issue (read: timber or minerals) and that tended to put related boundary disputes under the microscope in the way that they probably are not in many other parts of the US.
Kent McMillan, post: 368025, member: 3 wrote: Generally, the cases fall into several categories:
- the subsequent survey having been made without authority to establish the boundary in question (typical where State-owned lands or mineral estates are involved),
- the subsequent attempt to put the protracted scheme upon the ground had been inconsistent with some important element of the original scheme (as, for example, where a surveyor ran course and distance without making proper allowance for the variance of certain lines in the orginal scheme),
- the subsequent survey had not been equitable (as for example, neglecting to take shortage and excess into account),
- the subsequent survey had made some other significant error.
All of the above would be weighed in determining whether some originally protracted boundary had been established in some particular position by virtue of a survey having been made. In Texas case law, usually something more valuable than the land itself was at issue (read: timber or minerals) and that tended to put related boundary disputes under the microscope in the way that they probably are not in many other parts of the US.
Aborigine Lumber Co. v. Hyman, 245 Cal. App. 2d 938 (1966) is an agreed boundary case that involves the east-west centerline of the northeast quarter of Section 35. The east-west boundary was blazed in 1942 through valuable Redwood timberland. Successive owners accepted this blazed line as the boundary and harvested up to it on each side. In 1962 a Survey found that the "true" location was several hundred south of the blazed line. The Court upheld the blazed boundary as the true division line citing the Agreed Boundary Doctrine.
Dave Karoly, post: 368034, member: 94 wrote: Aborigine Lumber Co. v. Hyman, 245 Cal. App. 2d 938 (1966) is an agreed boundary case that involves the east-west centerline of the northeast quarter of Section 35. The east-west boundary was blazed in 1942 through valuable Redwood timberland. Successive owners accepted this blazed line as the boundary and harvested up to it on each side. In 1962 a Survey found that the "true" location was several hundred south of the blazed line. The Court upheld the blazed boundary as the true division line citing the Agreed Boundary Doctrine.
Yes, but how is that distinguished from any other boundary that was established by longtime recognition and acquiescence, even those where no surveys were involved? I assume that "harvested up to it on each side" means that there wasn't any timber left to argue about in 1962?
Kent McMillan, post: 368038, member: 3 wrote: Yes, but how is that distinguished from any other boundary that was established by longtime recognition and acquiescence, even those where no surveys were involved? I assume that "harvested up to it on each side" means that there wasn't any timber left to argue about in 1962?
Redwood trees grow back quickly, that's why they were fighting over the ground.
Texas is not the only place with valuable timberland.
The thing that has changed is that today you would need a Land Surveyor to explain to the trial court that the blazed boundary is the original boundary between the halves. If they accept that then the appellate courts will almost certainly refuse to reverse regarding it as a question of the evidence, not law.
Dave Karoly, post: 368045, member: 94 wrote:
The thing that has changed is that today you would need a Land Surveyor to explain to the trial court that the blazed boundary is the original boundary between the halves. If they accept that then the appellate courts will almost certainly refuse to reverse regarding it as a question of the evidence, not law.
Except what surveyor would be able to testify that the blazed line was the same line described in the patents to the various parts of the section (I assume) if those patents referred to the original government survey? Nobody? So, the best the surveyor would be able to do is to testify that the blazed line was "only" a hundred feet off the original line, right?
There is no line established before the blazed line. The GLO did not survey the 1/16th lines.
Dave Karoly, post: 368055, member: 94 wrote: There is no line established before the blazed line. The GLO did not survey the 1/16th lines.
Well, wasn't it clear that the line run in 1942 was more than 100 ft. off the line shown upon the government plat to which the patents referred? What did I miss?
I mean, one obvious basic threshhold test of whether some line or construction is plausible or not is the graphical one, i.e. whether if can be seen to be wrong when simply plotted to scale on a map in relation to known lines or corners.
The way I will answer this question is that after viewing many pin gardens and asking the surveyors who set them "why is the monument you found NOT an established property corner?", the answers given for the same basic circumstance, e.g.: "The monument I found did not quite agree with MY calculations" were so varied that it inspired my presentation titled:
"Monuments Control, And 1,001 Reasons Why Surveyors Plant Pin Gardens Anyway".
My favorite response of all, by one company who sets a new monument whenever they find a pin that does not agree with THEIR calculations: "We do not set pincushions! We set monuments according to the preponderance of the evidence!".
So, NO, I have not heard any credible cite that distinguishes the difference between the first surveyor and an original surveyor, and NO, after filing and looking at thousands of land survey plats, and hundreds of pincushions, have I heard any credible, legal reason given by any surveyor, and this includes cases of legitimate, legal conflicts where multiple monuments are justified.
Kent McMillan, post: 368066, member: 3 wrote: Well, wasn't it clear that the line run in 1942 was more than 100 ft. off the line shown upon the government plat to which the patents referred? What did I miss?
Aborigine Lumber Co. v. Hyman, 245 Cal. App. 2d 938 (1966)
In 1941 a Mr. Cogburn purchased the north half of the northeast quarter of Section 35 from the Union Lumber Company. Union retained the south half of the quarter section. Cogburn was uncertain as to the boundary line between the two parcels. He asked a Mr. Montgomery, who worked in the surveying and land management department of Union, for help. Montgomery asked a Mr. Gray, who was in charge of the land and timber department of Union, about the matter, and Gray referred him to Thorne Holmes, Union's surveyor. Holmes supplied Montgomery with surveying data and measurements, and instructed him how to conduct the survey. Montgomery was a competent surveyor's assistant. In doing the actual field work Montgomery had the help of his brother, who also worked for Union under the supervision of Thorne Holmes. The Montgomerys, using data and measurements supplied by Union, Cogburn's grantor, ran a line from the easterly line of the northeast quarter of Section 35 west to a point near the westerly line of the quarter section and established a boundary line between the north half and the south half of the northeast quarter. They blazed trees and marked the line as they went until they reached the banks of Pudding Creek, near the west boundary line of the quarter section, where Cogburn instructed them they need go no further. Cogburn observed the work of the Montgomerys as it progressed, and after it was completed was satisfied that it was his south line.
In 1950 respondents acquired the south half of the northeast quarter of Section 35 from a Mr. Curtis, who had acquired it from Union. Curtis knew of the blazed line between the two parcels and pointed it out to respondents. Thereafter respondents and Cogburn, who still owned the property on the north, had a talk about the boundary line. Both Cogburn and respondents agreed that the line blazed by Montgomery in 1942 was the boundary line.
In 1953 Cogburn sold his land to McGuire and at the time of sale pointed out the south boundary line of his parcel. McGuire accepted the blazed line as that marking his ownership. In 1957 McGuire sold to appellant. Appellant's manager was shown the blazed line on the southerly boundary of McGuire's holding. By this time respondents had flagged the blazed line and it was clearly visible on the ground.
In 1958, 1959 and 1960 respondents conducted logging operations on their property and logged up to the blazed line. They sold their logs to appellant. On one occasion they asked and received appellant's permission to install a landing north of the blazed line for convenience in conducting their operations.
In 1962 appellant had a licensed surveyor survey a boundary line between the north half and the south half of the northeast quarter of Section 35. This line showed the boundary to be several hundred feet to the south of the line blazed and marked by the Montgomerys in 1942. This litigation then began.
The single issue in the case is whether the predecessors of the parties agreed upon a boundary line between the two parcels, fixed the boundary line and thereafter abided by it.
The inaccuracy of early land surveys in this state has been a fruitful source of litigation between adjoining landowners. (See Loeb, The Establishment of Boundary Lines by Practical Location, 4 Cal.L.Rev. 179.) In cases of doubt and uncertainty the courts look with favor upon private agreements fixing and marking boundary lines. ( Loustalot v. McKeel, 157 Cal. 634 [108 P. 707]; Crook v. Leinenweaver, 100 Cal.App.2d 790, 792 [224 P.2d 891].)
The blazed boundary was the original boundary between the north half and the south half from the facts given in the case (it was established jointly by the Grantor and Grantee). However, into the 1960s the California Courts commonly called it an agreed boundary; the Surveyor would say here (not understanding legal principles) so the Court would say maybe so but the Agreed Boundary Doctrine puts it over here. It was very common for them to do that. In some Counties Surveyors even ignored Senior Rights; that happened in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church; the Surveyor blew it (in my opinion) so the Court instead of instructing the Surveyor just called it an Agreed Boundary.
I don't have a problem accepting established boundaries even when they disagree with record (though I may quibble about the definition of "established"), but the situation that bothers me is when a "first survey" (as opposed to the work of the platting surveyor) is held to establish not just the boundary between two contiguous owners, but also the location of the platted line even though that location is in substantial disagreement with other evidence within the same subdivision.
I recall in hazy detail a case that was brought up in this forum in which an ancient subdivision showed only a handful of monuments on its exterior, none proximate to the lots in question. A surveyor had gone to a great deal of effort in assembling evidence throughout much of the subdivision and used that in re-creating the overall scheme, most of which fit relatively well with the few monuments and improvements that were extant at the time. However, a court ruled that one line between two owners fixed the line between their lots, and that fixed "lot line" was to be used in proportioning the locations of other lots within the tier. This resulted in a significant disagreement (significant enough to go to court over) with the work of the surveyor who had taken a more comprehensive approach, and that didn't seem reasonable to me.
Perhaps someone with a better memory than me can remember the specifics.