Evening star., 1901-04-17
A SUBDIVISION WANTED
APPLICATION MADE ION BEHALF OF
SMOOT HEIRS.
Attorney Duvall's Opinion Filed
Property Embraces Part of Square
1888, In Georgetown.

The District Commissioners recently sub
mitted to their attorney Mr.. A. B. Duvall
communication of the surveyor concern
ing the application of Messrs. Gordon &
Gordon, attorneys for the Smoot heirs to
subdivide portion of square 1898, George
town. into lots for the purpose of building
thereon. Today Mr.. Duvall forwarded to
the Commissioners his opinion in the case.
II is stated that the frontage of the
square on Dumbarton avenue was consid-
erably in excess of that indicated by the
original subdivision; that subsequent to
said original subdivision ninety feet on the
eastern part of said square was conveyed,
and that the western line of the proposed
subdivision has been definitely fixed by
conveyance and surveys. In 1911 convey
ance was made of the remainder of the
square, including the land now proposed to
be subdivided, by the said east and west
lines Heretofore established. In 1874 this
remainder OF the square was subdivided by
Z. II. Crag1n, trustee, into four lots in
tenoed TO embrace all of the original excess
IN the square. According to that subdi-
vision each of the four lots contained 24,375
feet.
1t now appears that there was further
excess OF l.2o feet in the land subdivided
by Cragin. Subsequently lot No Of that
subdivision was sold, and also let g. The
ine between lots and has been estab-
llshed by buildings on the dividing line
J: Inc owner OF lot is thus apparently con-
fined to 24,375 feet, leaving to be, disposed
OF in lots ], 2 and this excess of 1 20 feet.
Ihe helrs OF Smoot own lots l and 2 and
Trimble owns lot 3.
Excess Claimed.
Ihe heirs of Smoot, represented by
Messrs. Gordon & Gordon, claim all of this
excess of l.2O feet by right of possession I;
they thus claim more than would be called
for by reference to the subdivision of Cra-
gin as lots 1 and 2. They desire to erect
one building on their ground, and treating
nats as one 'r they propose to subdivide by
Inetes ah0 unds, describing the land as
part of tuaL 1888, and not as lots / and
Of the Crtg subdivision
assume says Mr.. Duvall, "that the
appllcants foi the subdivision are ready to
make the necess ry affidavit that no fher
person or persons than themselves have
any interest or claim therein, and that thew
are IN the peaceful occupation thereof. and
taal no suits are pending affecting the title
of the property.
The surveyor in his communication
states: The point which seems to me to
require the opinion of the attorney is as
to the right of the surveyor to break a
precedent hitherto unbroken in the office
except in the Gottwals case-to omit from
the certificate Of subdivision all reference
10 the component parts, by record, of the
frontage proposed for Subdivision
,o IN that connection he refers to section
ment of any excess among the lots or
pieces on the front Of the square, and also
to the custom of Georgetown recurring
such excess to go to the highest numbered
I, ioI, pul n, IL does not seem to me that sec
tion 4S1 can be given operation in this
case in view Of the fact that parts OF
the square have already been conveyed by
metes and bounds thus rendering impos-
slble any apportionment of the excess
Nor can the custom of GEORGETOWN as
understand it, be applied to this excess.
There is only one place for the excess and
that is either with the land of the Smoot
heirs or with Trimble.r ~"
Entitled Upon; Filing Affidavit.
If the Smoot heirs can make the af-
fidavit required by the regulations for
their proposed subdivision ] am of the
opinion that they are-entitled to have the
subdivision clearly show the frontage of
their land; and it, seems to me that the
only way to accomplish this is to describe
it as part of square 1898 and by metes and
bounds. as they have described it.
IF Mr.. Trimble claims any part of this
ground that is not a matter to be settled
upon this application.
'As to the further question propounded
by the surveyor: Whether he could omit
from the certificate of subdivision (pre-
pared by him for the owner) all reference
to the component parts by record, of the
frontage proposed for subdivision?'
He applies the term Certificate alike
to his certificate and the statement Of the
proprietors making the subdivision, and
this question refers to the latter.
Referring to the two plats of subdivision
accompanying these papers, it seems to me
that the one, designating the ground as
part of square 1888 and by certain metes
and bounds, with such remarks as the sur
veyor may deem necessary, Is the proper
certificate to be made in this case
ut is clear that the other plat proposing
to subdivide lots l and OF the Cragin
subdivision would not embrace the land
proposed to be subdivided.
THE law requires (section 49, R. 8. D.
CO that the surveyor shall certify the plat
of subdivision under his hand and seal with
such remarks appear to him necessary =
and his certificate appears to be the
proper place for such remarks as will ac-
count for the excess of 1.20 feet"
Interest and Costs Renifted.
The District Commissioners have remit