California Surveyors Forums

Hello.

I'm trying to determine the south line of the "north 40 acres of the northwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township, etc.". The deed states what is in the quote. The parcel was the first parcel conveyed out of the northwest 1/4 in March, 1911 of which deed I have. The old deed states same legal. There is also an unrecorded survey from February, 1911 just before the conveyance that shows the north 40 and several 10 ac. parcels to the south. The old survey shows a breakdown of the NW 1/4. The dimensions he shows along the east and west lines of the NW 1/4 are equally distributed. East side shows 4 dimensions of 659.8 and west side shows 4 dimensions of 660.8. Thus, this implies a breakdown making the north 40 more or less the north 1/2 of the north 1/2 of NW 1/4. So my question is: Do you use the dimensions from old survey and prorate to determine N 1/2 of N 1/2 or do you determine the south line by calculating exactly 40 acres and make the south line parallel to the north line of the NW 1/4?

What's the intent?

Thanks for any input.

Mike

what are the east west dimensions of the parcel?

Does the deed refer to the GLO plat? "according to the government survey" or some similar wording?

If so, that would imply federal rules to make the 40ac in harmony with the Township plat

Did the 1911 survey show monuments being set? Any occupation in agreement with the 1911 survey?

Barring any further information not already contained in your post, it would be hard to ignore a survey of a new dividing line through a parcel under one ownership, performed only one month prior to the dividing conveyance. Although the plain language of 40 acres would stand by itself, this situation begs to consider the alternate definition of 40 acres as being that of an aliquot division as performed by the surveyor and scrivener.

This is a normal section, so the assumption made in most conveyances at the time was that the nominal acreage of an aliquot portion of a section was 640, 320, 16, 80, 40... or close enough to not be concerned of the minor differences.

Don't get caught up in the Wood v. Mandrilla decision because that involved a non-standard section that included a significant excess over the standard aliquot division. That excess made an equitable difference in the understanding of the parties to that transaction. In the case of non standard sections, the GLO plat typically shows an excess or deficiency more than or less than 640 acres in the section, with government lots on the northern or (as in W v M) the western tier of the section. In a standard section, although later measurements almost always find differences that, given more modern equipment and methods, we now consider significant, at the time of the GLO surveys and for several decades afterward, the differences, even when measurable, aren't all that significant.

The circumstances you give make that point. Most people refer to a parcel that is an aliquot division smaller than a quarter as "an 80" or "a 40", as in "the back 40". For on thing, it's easier to say "I've got a 40 off Mt. Aukum Road" than it is to say "I own a quarter of a quarter section in township 8 north, range 19 east." Likewise, most deed descriptions, although we would like to imagine that they are and always have been written by surveyors, were written by attorneys, title officers, or the grantor landowner. To most non-surveyors, even if they have a very basic understanding of the PLSS, a quarter of a quarter section is always 40 acres and a section is always a mile by a mile and 640 acres.

In the situation you're looking at, the description writer would have or should have had the survey map in hand. It would have made it easier for a surveyor coming along 104 years later if the description specified the aliquot division (Wood v. Mandrilla was 3 years after that 1911 deed), or better yet, referred to the map and survey performed only a few weeks prior. But the description writer decided to keep it simple for the understanding of the parties - the conveyance was for "a 40". That doesn't mean that it was for 40.00 acres, but "a 40" which is a standard division that is 40 acres +/-.

The law generally presumes that if a survey was performed just prior to a conveyance and the parcel described in the conveyance can reasonably be interpreted as being a parcel shown on the map, that the described parcel was intended to be the same as that of the survey - the survey controls. In some circumstances, a survey performed after the conveyance can similarly be taken to accurately show the intent of the original parties and so control the terms of the description.

In this case, you have a map that is just prior - slam dunk. You don't need to guess further. The intent is clear. If the February 1911 map shows a standard aliquot division, then that's what that March 1911 deed attempted to describe.

Thanks for all your input. East/West dimension per survey is 2631.2'. North line of NW 1/4 dimension is not shown.

The original 1911 deed does not refer to the original government plat.

The 1911 survey shows some stakes along the concerning line, (which I assume were wood), and they are long gone. The place has been farmed for years (almonds). The survey does show pipes at the NW corner and N 1/4 corner which I have found and measured to.

I was definitely leaning toward using the survey map, but wanted to get feedback. I think the 40 acres is more of a general intent in the intent. The deed didn't say exactly 40 acres or 40.00, etc. The area will end up being very close to 40 as it turns out.

I commend you for researching the deeds and surveys back to the time of the original conveyance which created the parcel.

If you sit in the seats occupied by the original parties to the original conveyance you would have the surveyor's map before you which explains what they meant by the north 40 acres. You aren't changing the description, just interpreting it using evidence of the circumstances surrounding the conveyance. I presume they paid for a survey in order to know where their new boundaries are located on the ground. If the grantee asked to see his new southeast and southwest corners, the grantor would show him the stakes recently set by the surveyor.