Abstract
The rule of monument control has developed as a necessary corollary to the Statute of Frauds as applied to land conveyances. Confusion in the application of the two rules can be avoided by examining their underlying equitable policies. A consideration of these policies is necessary for a reasoned approach to judging the admissibility and weight of evidence needed to prove a boundary monument. San Juan County v. Ayer illustrates the confusion which can result when a court attempts to apply these rules in a technical manner divorced from their historical background. Many boundary disputes could properly be resolved by using the rule of monument control as a rule of construction, thereby allowing the court to weigh the equities of the dispute before it, rather than as a rule of law to be contrasted with the Statute of Frauds.
Recommended Citation
Jerry Broadus, Boundary Law: The Rule of Monument Control in Washington, 7 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 355 (1984).
