The Impossible Deed Call on Lot 6

Arithmetic first. The east half of a 330.0-ft lot is 165.0 ft wide, running from 165.0 ft to 330.0 ft measured from the west lot line. A call for "the west 200 feet of the east half" therefore describes 200 ft of land inside a 165-ft-wide strip - an impossible description on its face. Running west from the east half's west line would put the parcel 35 ft off the lot; running east from it would run 35 ft past the east lot line.

Rules of construction:

• Natural or artificial monuments and the boundaries of the tract called for in the deed control over courses and distances, and distance controls over quantity. The only boundary call in the deed is the east half of Lot 6 - a line fixed by the tract map.
• An impossible or false call may be rejected as surplusage if the remainder of the description identifies the land. Applying that, the grant passes the east half of Lot 6, 165.0 ft wide, running from 165.0 ft to 330.0 ft, bounded on the east by the east lot line.
• Extrinsic evidence of Owen's intent at the time could support a different reading (e.g., 200 ft from the west lot line), so the conclusion is a construction, not a certainty. Say so.

Practical result for your survey: the Pryce east line is the Lot 6 east line at 330.0 ft; the disputed portion is the west line at 165.0 ft, not the east line you were asked about.

Seniority. Owen conveyed the east half to Pryce in 1948. A grantor cannot convey what he no longer owns, so the 1956 deed to Vance conveyed nothing to the extent it overlaps land already deeded - regardless of recording dates or the fact that Vance recorded later.

Conflict quantified: Vance's "east 100 feet" runs from 230.0 ft to 330.0 ft. Under the construction above, all 100.0 ft lies inside Pryce's east half (165.0–330.0). The overlap is therefore total, not partial - which is exactly why the seller's broker will push back on your conclusion.

What the map shows:

• The record line of the 1948 conveyance (the east half boundary at 165.0 ft) as the senior line.
• The Vance deed line (230.0 ft) shown as a record call of a junior instrument, with a note that it falls within the senior conveyance.
• No new "compromise" line, no averaging, no unlabeled single line of your own invention.
• Any fence or occupation line shown as occupation evidence with its offset.

What you do not do: decide that Vance has no land, or that Owen's intent was otherwise. That is a title question. Report the conflict in writing to the seller, the buyer and the lender, recommend counsel, and note that Vance's remedy may be against Owen's warranty rather than the land.

Weight: an unrecorded survey map is not constructive notice and cannot control over the deed calls, the tract map, or monuments found on the ground. It is, however, evidence: if it exists and shows monuments that were set and can still be found, those monuments may be evidence of the boundary the parties intended, and the reference in a recorded deed can create inquiry notice that a diligent buyer or surveyor is expected to follow.

Handling:

1. Search beyond the recorder: the surveyor's estate or successor firm, the title company's files, the prior owners' records, the county surveyor's index, and any monument records filed for the Hale work.
2. Ask the seller and the neighbors for a copy; interview long-time residents about stakes or pipes set in 1962.
3. If found, evaluate the map's monuments on the ground rather than its drawn lines.
4. If not found, note the reference on your map and in your report as "referenced, not of record, not located," and state that the deed calls and found monuments were used instead.
5. Do not ignore the reference, and do not let a missing map force a conclusion - documented investigation is the deliverable.