The Pine Valley Deeds

[Tom MacWood]

Bryan
You've devoted several months and hundreds of posts to PV and as far as I can tell it has been a total waste of time. I don't know what you were trying to prove or what you intended to discover, but don't let me stop you from your ultimate goal...whatever that might be. Maybe it was just to give everyone a good chuckle.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Too bad you wasted your time. 

I think David and Pat online, and the offline reprobates have probably expended just as many words on these wastes of time.  To your credit, you don't waste a lot of words to waste my time.

The purpose of this thread was the deeds.  If they are a waste of time, then you have a strange set of values, in my opinion.

I humbly suggest that you refrain from wasting any more of your time making inane posts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

Look at the bright side - next time Patrick tells you are "agenda driven" you can point to TMac's post to say you weren't, because even he admits you didn't know where you were going when you started this thread.

I am still having trouble grasping Tmac's basic point.  Is he, as someone who has tried to sell his services as a golf historian, saying that you need to start out trying to prove (or often, disprove) something to make digging up old documents worthwhile?  Do you need a theory to start with or is it okay to just find stuff and let the history go where it goes?

BTW, for the record, I am coming around to Patrick's way of thinking on the PV land discovery process.  I doubt he got a hunting lease from Lumberton, as they wouldn't want guns around an active mine site, so if he hunted it, it would have to be before 1904.  Maybe you could expand your search to see if there were any hunting licences granted?

And, it makes sense that he would tell Tillie that he had been on that land and maybe it would be good for golf, since Tillie was an architect.  They discussed it, and as far as Tillie was concerned, it was the first time he thought about it for golf, or Tillie concurred, or whatever.  It may have been Tillie's reality, and just as Shelly said - Crump knew the land, but it got more serious considerations when he and Tillie saw and discussed it from the train.  Even then, he spent some time looking at Atlantic City, because his buddies wanted to play down there for better weather, etc. at that time.  When sites were deemed less than perfect, he came back to the PV site.

Of course, that will be labeled as, and is, speculation.  If you were looking for facts to solve this thing, a look into any Ireland family records might be in order to see about hunting leases.  I believe someone said they were typical, even back then, so maybe they still exist somewhere.

[JESII]

Macwood,

Do you think you've made a contribution to these conversations? If so, I wonder how and where?

[Peter Pallotta]

just for a little humour, on the eve of the new year, from the old 'Yes, Minister" series.

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a dis-united Europe.  In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Minister Hacker: But that's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break up the European Community, and so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But we're all committed to the European ideal!
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism!
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan what is the first mention you've found in the various deeds of the RR station across the tracks? 

If your goal here is really the dissemination of the deeds, then why not post them all together in one place so we don't have to dig though this mess to review them?

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

I don't take Pat seriously with his agenda remarks.  It's only one of his dogmatic arsenal of insults that he hurls at everyone who doesn't agree with him.  It's in keeping with his agenda to bust everyone's chops for his own amusement   

Does Tom have a point, other than that he is the only truly credible "historian" on the site?

The hunting lease is, in my opinion, a real wild goose chase.  I believe David first speculated that a "profit" could be a way to hunt on private land.  Let Patrick or David pursue that silliness. The existence of one was pure speculation to rationalize Crump trespassing on private land to hunt what would become PV.  If a hunting lease is mentioned often enough around here, it'll probably be added to the folklore and in another hundred years people will think that there was a lease.

I've been trying to find an understanding of the discovery stories that could accommodate both the hunting and the train stories.  Even Patrick seems to have come around to agreeing that Crump told Tillinghast about the property on the train  (even though it was totally obscured from the train):

GAC, already familiar with the property, pointed it out to AWT and others on a trip to AC.

Tom, of course, is still stuck on the train story being a complete myth.

[Bryan Izatt]

Peter,

Thanks for the humour (sic).  It seems to be badly needed when I'm in the mood to continue in the fine Canadian parliamentary tradition and tell the shiddle diddles to fuddle duddle.     Apologies in advance.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan what is the first mention you've found in the various deeds of the RR station across the tracks?

The train station is first mentioned in the oldest deed in 1904 when Lumberton bought the land from Katz's estate. 

If your goal here is really the dissemination of the deeds, then why not post them all together in one place so we don't have to dig though this mess to review them?

Aw, come on David.  The deeds are between pages 2 and 7, inclusive of this thread.  They stand out in a quick scan.  It's not that hard to find them so that you can review them.  The Katz - Lumberton you were asking about above is in post 54, page 2.  Feel free to copy any and all of them to your computer and to reuse them.  I promise, in advance, not to threaten you for using my work product.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  

Believe it or not I am rooting for you to figure out whatever it is you think you are trying to figure out and am even trying to help but your recent snide comments and passive aggressive pot shots are making it a little difficult.  

As for your gratuitous mention of threats and the implication that goes with it, the only threats were in Cirba's feeble mind.  You aren't advancing the conversation by playing along with his flights of hysteria and endless attempts at martyrdom.  

As for your repeated claim that i am only disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, you really ought to know better by now.  If you review our little disagreements in the past, you will find that my ability to navigate this material is sound and not motivated by the pettiness that seems to have an increased grip on your responses.

As for your indignation at my suggestion that perhaps you should pull the deeds together for easier viewing and dissemination, it was merely a suggestion.  You told us that the purpose of the thread was the deeds, yet you've inexplicably sprinkled then among hundreds of posts as if it was a treasure hunt.  I was merely offering up a path to better accomplish your stated goal. Ignore my suggestion if you like, but let's not pretend it was an unreasonable suggestion, or one worthy of your indignation.

For someone who tries to position himself as neutral and objective you are doing more than your fair share of shit stirring lately.  Perhaps you need to take a breath.
_________________________________________

I asked you about the RR station north the tracks, and you pointed me toward a deed pertaining to the land south of the tracks.  What am I missing?  When is the first specific mention of the station north of the tracks?   

I cannot make out too much of that hand-written deed from 1904.   If it specifies that the Sumnter Station was across the tracks, then can you provide me the language, because I don't see where it does this.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I asked you about the RR station north the tracks, and you pointed me toward a deed pertaining to the land south of ] the tracks.  What am I missing?  When is the first specific mention of the station north of the tracks?

The deed mentions a ROW on the Lumberton, then PV property going to the Sumner station.  The metes and bounds of the Lumberton, then PV property do not define or exclude any property south west of the tracks that could be a station.  The station was named Sumner.  Sumner was Ireland's maiden name.  It wasn't named Katz station.  By deductive logic, if there is no property for it south west of the tracks and it was named after the people to the north east side of the track then logically Sumner station must have been northeast of the track.

[JESII]

I think anybody that wanted to have the deeds in one place has had every opportunity to save them into their own file...it's not all that difficult...in that format you can even increase the font size in the event it might help to read some of the words.

David,

What do you mean when you say Bryan pointed you to a deed referring to a RR on the South side of the tracks?

Do you think the right of way extended that far? Are you implying that Joseph Katz had a RR station for his property prior to 1904?


Jeff,

What has changed your mind?



Peter,

It certainly feels that way...

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

It seems my question remains unanswered.  What is the earliest specific mention you have seen of the RR station north of the tracks?  It sounds as if we agree that the deeds you pointed me toward don't specifically mention the RR flag station as having been north of the tracks.   I understand your "deductive reasoning" but it is rather beside the point of my question.   Generally deeds are not written so as to require such "deductive reasoning" to make sense of them.    And then there is that nagging memory I have of having read that the station was relocated to the location north of the tracks.  

________________________________________________________

Jim, I asked Bryan for information in the deeds indicating that the RR station located north of the tracks, and he pointed me toward a deed involving the conveyance of land south of the tracks (the 184 acres.)

I am not sure where the Sumner flag station was located.  I recall reading that it had been moved from somewhere east to its location across the tracks, but I don't remember where I read that.  Starting at least as far back as 1904, the deeds for the 184 acres reserve a Right of Way running along the tracks and ending at the RR station.  While Bryan's "deductive reasoning" has convinced him that the deeds must really have meant that the ROW ended across from the station, I am not comfortable with that assumption.    

[JESII]

David,

The Stick routings dated March 1913 and the Colt Plan dated May or June 1913 each show the Sumner Station across from the elbow of the 1st fairway (maybe 150 or 200 yards from the property line) and show nothing on the golf course side. Don't you think that's the one they were referring to? How could it not be?

[DMoriarty]

Who is "they?"   Do you mean the deed from nine years earlier?  I don't know if that referred to the same station or not.   It could have, but I have questioned it because I think I read somewhere that the station had moved.   Whether it really did move, I do not know.   I'll try to remember where I read it.    Maybe I am mistaken, or maybe it came from one of the less than reliable "sources" about such things.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I've been consistent in what I said the deeds showed about the train station.  The deeds in 1904 and 1912 and 1913 all describe the ROW to the train station.  They are identical.  According to the deeds the station is not on the south west side of the tracks in that time frame.  The station is marked on the Ireland side of the tracks on the 1913 topo and the Colt plan.  It's in the same place in the 1920 and 1931 aerials.  For me, that's about as close as you can get to ironclad for the period 1904 to 1931.

I understand that you have some doubts based on something you read somewhere.  Sorry, I can't help you with where you read that the station moved, although I recall that you have mentioned it in the past.  If you remember and find it, I'd be interested in seeing what it says.  In the face of the multiple corroborating pieces of evidence above, I'd be skeptical of its accuracy if you do find it.

[JESII]

1898 (1885 Survey)

David,

This topo shows clearly a road running from the North, around Lake Lekau and then a bit East to a RR crossing (I pressume) and then continues South across what would become Pine Valley's property. Matching the position of the lake makes this clear. If in fact the station did move I would think it was very little, not the distance to get to the shed near the 17th tee, don't you think?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

What is the earliest specific mention you have seen of the RR station north of the tracks?

It is not a trick question.  In fact it is aimed at helping you to make your case.  If the RR station was north of the tracks as you suspect, then it ought to be easy enough to prove up by consulting the deeds of the land adjacent and around the station.   After all, isn't it your basic assumption that the deeds would mention such things?

You wrote: "According to the deeds, the station is not on the south west side of the tracks in that time frame."  I don't believe the deeds directly address this point.  If they do, can you show me where?   I recall mention of the Station in the reservation for the ROW which ended at the station, but nothing definitely establishing that the station was not south of the tracks.   Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you have concluded that the station was not on that side of the road because the deeds don't mention a specific reservation for station land south of the tracks?   I understand this logic, but am not certain that a "flag stop" would even require such a dedicated plot.   Was the 25 feet between the 184 acres and the RR line not enough room for a flag stop?

If it is important to you that you nail down this particular fact, then I'd again suggest you consult the deeds from across the way.  That certainly makes more sense than proclaiming your proof to be "ironclad" even though we both know it is not.  Ironclad from 1913 on maybe, but before?  Find a reference to the station north of the tracks in the deeds from the period, and then you would have made your case.

Again Bryan, it really doesn't matter to me one way or another.  Maybe the station was always right there.  It hasn't come to me where I read otherwise, and the search function was broken when I tried to look for this on the website.
__________________________________________

Jim,

looking at the other maps, I believe that road was called "old mill road" north of the tracks, and "2nd street" south of the tracks.   It looks like it crossed the tracks in about the same spot as the current entry to the course. Lining it up on later maps it looks like at one point it cut cut through just the corner of the course, across the 2nd and 1st fairways.  I agree it makes sense that the station would have been located near this point, but I don't know for sure that it was.   Perhaps the ROW mentioned in the deeds was providing an alternate route along the course edges rather than across the fairway.  I asked Bryan at one point to identify the specific point where the ROW began, but I don't recall if he ever did.

Bryan, did the ROW start at the furthest south point, or did it start somewhere adjacent to the 2nd fairway?

One odd thing is that one of the history books indicated that the Sumner residence was northeast of the PV.  I am not sure how that fits in with the roads visible on that old map.

[JESII]

David,

I recall Bryan answering that the ROW began in the SW corner, near 6 tee/7 green, but I guess he can confirm.

I read the Sumner reseidence reference as being the actual house on the property. In the later article the property was stated at 3,200 acres. One of the deeds seems to have given access (if not ownership) of that old mill rd through the estate from Virginia Ireland to the club.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  I agree that reference was to the house, and that is precisely what I find odd. If the Sumner house was to the northeast, why would their flag stop be near the southwest corner of the property?

You may be right about the ROW starting at the corner near the 6th or 7th.  That sounds familiar.  Not sure what that does to the theory that the road on that old atlas was used to access the RR.

[JESII]

Why would the road and the ROW need to be connected in any way?

How do you know where the SW corner of the Sumner/Ireland property was? Virginia Ireland sold that road to Pine Valley in some manner which indicates the property extended west of there.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

The earliest direct evidence of the location of the station on the north side is the 1913 topo or the 1920 aerial.

My "case" is not a case, it is only a clarification of another incidental piece of local knowledge.  To my satisfaction, if not yours, I think I know where the Sumner station was through the time period of interest, and that is on the north side of the tracks serving the Ireland estate and later the Lumberton and then PV needs.  Six months ago, we had no evidence where it was and were doubting that it even existed until you pulled up the train schedules.  Now, I think I know where it was.  If you want to doubt the location, I think the ball is in your court to find evidence of another location.  

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you have concluded that the station was not on that side of the road because the deeds don't mention a specific reservation for station land south of the tracks?   I understand this logic, but am not certain that a "flag stop" would even require such a dedicated plot.

Sure, that would be a way of saying it a different way.  So, do you think a ROW required an exception or reservation but a plot of land for a station wouldn't?  Doesn't seem likely to me.

The 25 feet is from the middle of the track.  So, half the width of the track and a few feet of clearance for the ties and the road bed, how much would that leave for a station - maybe 10 feet.  That also doesn't seem likely to be enough room.

It's not important to me to "nail down" the location of the station before 1913 any more than I have.  It's nailed to my satisfaction.  If you feel it could be more nailed down, then YOU could consult the Ireland deeds.  I don't have them and it's not important enough to me to get them to nail this down to YOUR standard of nailing down.

If you ever remember and find the article describing a move of the station, let me know and I'll reconsider.

Jim's recollection of the ROW starting point is correct.  So is his recollection that Crump deeded access on Old Mill Road across Ireland's property to the club.

Jim,

Re that road on the 1898 topo (surveyed in 1885 IIRC), it maps exactly to Old Mill Road on the northern side and across the 1st and 2nd fairways more or less where 2nd Ave crosses today on the south side.  It was there in 1885, but I have to assume that it wasn't a public ROW since there is no exception to any of the 184 acre deeds that except it.  It must have been a private road that was never made public.

Here's the overlay of the 1898 road (in yellow).  Where it crosses the RR track is where the station was located on the topo and the aerials.  Seems like a logical place for it.

[Bryan Izatt]

In the deeds, anything even a touch east of north is called northeastwardly.  Everything north of the tracks is northeast.  Perhaps whatever historic account you read used the same interpretation.  So, 5* east of north could have been northeast in the lexicon of the day.  Do you have the source and exact quote that you are referring to?  The context might help resolve the oddity for you.

 

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Thanks for finally answering my question. That wasn't so hard, was it?  If you are comfortable relying on your assumptions about some deeds rather than actually putting the matter rest, it is no skin off my nose.

In the deeds, anything even a touch east of north is called northeastwardly.  Everything north of the tracks is northeast.  Perhaps whatever historic account you read used the same interpretation.  So, 5* east of north could have been northeast in the lexicon of the day.  Do you have the source and exact quote that you are referring to?  The context might help resolve the oddity for you.

Everything north of the tracks is northeast?   Surely you must be joking.  

The reference to Sumner's home is from from Shelly, who wrote that Sumner's home overlooked the property from a hill on the other side of the railway, to the northeast.  I assume Shelly knew what "northeast" meant and that he also knew what "hill" meant.  

Of the station, Shelly wrote that the stop was called Sumner but the RR eventually built a new station "at that stop and called it Pine Valley."  

[Bryan Izatt]

No, I wasn't joking.  Just reporting how the deeds treated directions. 

You should definitely go with Shelley and your assumption that he knew that NE means 45 degrees off north and that he knew what a hill was. Should be easy for you to pinpoint where the house was then.  I wonder if he was using the magnetic NE of 1913 or of 1982?  Something to consider in your quest.