Agree. I've had them also. It's very odd why they do that.
However -- realize you don't have the *actual* survey in front of you. You have the
clerk's *transcription* of it. The vast majority of minor non-closing metes can be
attributed to transcription errors -- 8 for 6 or 9, 4 for 7, 1 for 7, etc. etc. Also not
everybody's handwriting would have been of the same quality. It's the same for
deeds, wills and basically every other record that is in a bound county volume -- those
are clerk transcriptions therein. The original survey went to the owner, of course, who
then had the responsibility to take it down and have it recorded.
On the actual size -- as noted, the grant was for a set amount of land. The ostensible
rule was you could not go over it, but obviously you could go under it if you couldn't
get that much land contiguous. You could do more than one tract to make up to the total,
but they generally didn't like to do that...I assume because it clearly cut into the
recording fees they could charge, since you could then take out a grant for 10,000 acres
and pay a single grant filing fee, while then partitioning it out into dozens of smaller
tracts and dodging the X-1 grant registration fees. The tracts usually came out pretty
close, but for other-than-flat-terrain, it could be difficult, especially if you are
shooting between existing claims.
From: Barbara Vines Little via <deed-mapper-users(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [DMU] Entering Deeds From A Plat
I don't disagree; however, I have had deeds that go halfway around and
then return to the starting point and go the other way around. I have no
idea why, but the description clearly states that you return to the
starting point and then continue in x direction.
Barbara Vines Little, CG, FNGS, FVGS
PO Box 1273
Orange, VA 22960
CG, Certified Genealogist, is a service mark of the Board for Certification of
under license by board-certified genealogists after periodic evaluation; the board name
registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office.
On 11/8/2015 12:30 PM, Dave Bird via wrote:
Well, for me, I would not be quick to say that the calls actually went
the other way around. Seems like there would be an issue, at least one.
In the field, one always has to have a starting point. And, for the
survey to go both ways (both clock and counter-clock wise), one would
have to go both ways from some starting point and join together at a
remote point. This would entail two crews with two sets of equipment, or
the same crew and equipment retracing their steps to the beginning and
then going the other way. Neither of these strategies seems to be useful.
On the other hand, the surveyor knows that he can write down the calls
on paper, and actually do them on paper, both ways. He simply exchanges
each cardinal direction with it's opposite, leaving the compass bearing
constant. Then the line is in exactly the same place. So then, as he
makes the sketch, he can do it in the most convenient way with his tools
(pencil, protractor, ruler). He starts at one point, proceeds along
sometimes moving the paper, sometimes perhaps moving around the work
space, probably sometimes leaving the pencil at the last end point to
pivot and place the ruler on the correct bearing, drawing the lines as
conveniently and accurately as possible.
I am inclined to think that the change in direction is just in drawing
the sketch. This is also supported by the fact that there are two points
in the sketch, at the beginning and the end, that are not coincident.
Which makes sense if the sketch is actually constructed that way.
As for the area, I don't usually give a lot of weight to that being the
same between the survey and the computer. It depends on the terrain,
which frequently has hills and valleys, as well as the surrounding
plats. When the survey is done, there is no record of the angles up and
down from vertical when trekking up and down hill, and even if there
were it would not always allow measuring the area inside. I would
suspect in terrain with visibility, a good eye would yield the
approximate acreage accounting for hills, slopes, etc. If the terrain is
flat the survey should give a reasonably accurate acreage. I don't know
how the surveyor actually measures the area (or even if he does), but I
suspect it is with drafting tools on the sketch, approximate at best.
The computer is of course exact. But, neither accounts for the fact that
the survey does not actually measure the area.
I have used the acreage to reconstruct surveys using the plats
surrounding it though. Sometimes that's pretty much all you have to work
Jim Barrett wrote:
> Thanks for your report. I thought it was very interesting that about
> half of the calls went one way around the plat and the others went in
> the opposite direction.
> When I got through I had 532.3 acres.
> Jim Barrett - Timpson, TX
> *From:* Dave Bird <dave-nina.bird(a)cox.net>
> *To:* Jim Barrett <parino(a)flash.net>;
> deed-mapper-users(a)rootsweb.com; DeedMapper
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 7, 2015 9:08 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [DMU] Entering Deeds From A Plat
> Hello Jim:
> I plotted this out straightforwardly from what seems to be the
> where there are two points that are close together. Those are at the
> bottom of the plot where it says S76W 36. Not wanting to spend a lot of
> time pouring over the deed and researching the scale, I just put in
> chains as the unit of distance. This first call establishes the
> direction of the plot as clockwise. And, the ending call is in a
> consistent direction so, I go with that.
> Doing this, and entering all the calls exactly as shown (to my eye and
> fixing the typos as deedmapper exposes them), at call number 7 or so,
> the plot goes haywire. From that point on, it seems that all the calls
> up to the next to the last one have the directions swapped north for
> south, east for west, etc. When I fix that, the deed almost closes, the
> shape is pretty close to what is drawn, and the area comes out to 495.6
> In order to make the plot close, I would play with the distance of one
> or more of the calls. A good one to start would be S38E 16. If I make
> that 24, then it closes and looks almost exactly like the plot in the
> deed. The area at this point is 551 Acres.
> My opinion is that this is about as good as it gets with these old
> surveys. You are lucky to have the plot. Many of the ones I have tried
> to reconstruct do not have the original survey even, so the plot is
> absent, and you are then totally at the mercy your wits, and the
> surrounding plats to figure out what is going on.
> Interesting exercise.
> Hope this helps.
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
DEED-MAPPER-USERS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message