What is the order of conflicting calls in boundary law based on?

In boundary law, when assessing conflicting calls, the primary focus is on both the written intention of the parties involved and the physical monuments that can be identified on the property. This dual approach ensures that the intentions of the parties, as documented in legal descriptions or deeds, are respected, while also taking into account tangible markers, like fences, trees, or other landmarks, that provide a physical context to the property boundaries.

The principle here is that when there is a dispute or ambiguity regarding boundaries, courts typically prioritize documented intentions because they reflect what the parties intended to agree upon. However, when these intentions conflict with what is physically present on the ground, the actual monuments take precedence, as they often provide a clearer and more reliable representation of the boundaries.

Other factors, such as area or direction and distance, may be considered, but they are subordinate to the combination of written intention and physical evidence. This hierarchy reflects a legal understanding that seeks to balance the intentions of the parties with the realities of the physical land to settle disputes fairly and consistently.