California Surveyors Forums

Got a deed calling for 20.06-5/32 chains. Any thoughts?

I got 1324.066'. assuming that the fraction is "a fraction of the tenth of the chain".

Also anyone else out there that can measure that precise on chains? LOL

The really bad part of it is that this one deed calls for "Chains", "Rods" and "Feet" all in the same description. It was written about 80 years ago.

20.06_5/32 chains and break it down as follows:
20.06 chains plus 5/32 of a chain
you get : 1323.96' + 10.31' = 1334.27'

But if you say that the 5/32 is a fraction of the .01 of a chain you get:
1320' + 3.96' + 0.10' = 1324.06'

pull 20 chains put a pin in the ground. from there pull 6 links + 5/32 of the next link.

1324.06'

Thats seams to open right now, in the print it apprears to be a dash and not a minus, but I guess the only way to really know is to find out what typewriter he was using back then. But the big thing is now it is detirmined that it is not part of our tract, so get the title company to remove it and let the next surveyor deal with it.

But just for fun, how did he break down the link into 32s? did he pull out a ruler? If so was that ruler in inches (common ruler back then)? Was the 5/32 actually 5/32 of an inch or really 5/32 of a link? I have never seen a link that was marked in 32 increments.

That was the first GISP taking notes for a Land Surveyor...

Perhaps a parcel adjustment was made, and a strip measured by an architect was added, then the legals were combined later. I've seen it.

OTOH, courses will have to be adjusted to meet modern parcel closure requirements, so 0.1 ft probably won't have an appreciable effect. I'd convert it to 1324.06' and continue.

very poorly written, probably by a lawyer. I agree that its 20.06 chains plus 5/32 of a link.

You should see it in full, the "thence" before this call says to go 4 and 1/2 rods; thence go the chains I have referred and the last "thence" uses feet. All of which call for a bearing to the second.

This really seems like some kind of typo ?

What follows the measurement "ie;" . . 20.06...chains to the ??
could this be a "more or less" symbol ? like 20.06 +/_ chains ?

You may have to dig back a ways to view an older document to see if indeed a typo occured ?

I dealt with one that stated "thence 6chains to a point; thence north . . . "
Upon further review, we found an old document that had a very faint "16"chains to the point This fit occupation and also closed out the deed quite well.

I'll try to ask My dad to see if he knows anything.

great question !!

Yes, if it might be a typo, ask the title company for a deed history.