Yoho v. Stack

I concur. “[A] monument, in order to be favored in law over a mentioned course or distance for the purpose of construing an ambiguous description, must ... be a physical thing on the ground and must be mentioned in the deed.” 5 P.L.E., Boundaries § 9 (emphasis added). See also: Matthews v. Bagnik, 157 Pa.Super. 115, 118, 41 A.2d 875, 877 (1945). The tree-fence line upon which appellant’s surveyor relied is not identified as a monument in the deed descriptions. Therefore, it is not entitled to the controlling *85effect which appellant’s surveyor gave to it. The trial court did not err when it…