DANIEL F. MCDAVID AND WIFE, PATRICIA C. MCDAVID, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROGER D. HARRIS AND WIFE, FAYE HARRIS, HARRY C. HARRIS AND WIFE, LINDA G. HARRIS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed a boundary dispute judgment, holding that a dependent survey properly retraced the original survey lines and that reliance on a deceased surveyor's field notes was admissible evidence, not excludable hearsay.
A dependent survey that retraces original survey lines using a deceased surveyor's field notes and other available evidence is proper, and such field notes are admissible as evidence in boundary disputes.
[1] A dependent survey that retraces original survey lines using a deceased surveyor's field notes and supplemental survey records is admissible evidence in boundary disputes…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a retracement and reestablishment of the lines of the original survey in their true original positions according to the best available evidence of the position of the original corners”
Definition of dependent survey from Barba Investment Company v. Walker
The McDavids appealed a judgment settling a boundary dispute in favor of the Harrises. A dependent survey was conducted to reestablish the original su…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Boundary Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case involves an appeal from a final judgment settling a boundary dispute in favor of appellees. Contrary to the assertion of appellants, it appears from the record that a dependent survey was conducted which contemplated “a retracement and reestablishment of the lines of the original survey in their true original positions according to the best available evidence of the position of the original corners.” See Barba Investment Company v. Walker, 350 So. 2d 509, 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). There was testimony that the field notes of Carter, a deceased surveyor, showed that he had proved the disputed corner by the observation of original markings. Further, after attempts were made by appellees’ surveyors to disprove the corner, they concluded that Carter’s monument perpetuated the original comer. Contrast Barba Investment Company v. Walker, supra. We find no merit in the allegation that reliance on Carter’s field notes constitutes excludable hearsay. Appellees presented evidence showing that the nature of survey work often requires the use of supplemental survey records. E. g. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Managements, Manual of Surveying Instructions, (Supp.1975, The Restoration of Lost or Obliterated Corners).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.