Gents,
Sorry for leaving a wrong impression. I had to leave the computer quickly to allow my daughter to do homework. As I said, a few days ago, I thought we were actually getting closer to some closure, but we never will, alas, with people continuing to ask questions that have already been answered.
The other documents I refer to are nothing new in the argument. I am referring to those that TePaul has recently shared parts of with us. As an example, he mentioned certain letters and dates of deeds on land transfers, which were new documents to this discussion as far as I knew.
TePaul,
Once again, you seem to have me confused with David. I have said I think the land swap took place about when the deeds were recorded and the swap approved.
As to the topos, I presume Lloyd or McConnel had a survey done when they bought the property (all 338 acres) and may have contracted the same surveyors to prepare a topo map either at the same time, or perhaps as a separate contract. McDonald alludes to them after his June 1910 meeting (saying he doesn't have them in front of him) so I presume it would have been right up front, which would also be typical for subdivision work. Barker may have used it, CBM probably saw it, and the committee sure used it. The time it was prepared probably has no bearing on this discussion.
My guess is also that the metes and bounds survey in your possession shows only the final boundary, right? There was probably no need to survey the interim land arrangements until the final design was complete under their arrangement.
I can see the logic tree for both sides of this argument on the land swap - sliver vs tirangle, but each is a few branches short of a full tree. I will say no more because I hate to sound like a tuna flopping around on the dock. And I sure don't want to be called either a California lawyer or Philly Main Line Butt Boy.