the stream coincided with these calls. However, Mr. McGarvey found that the stream was not at the 1105 foot elevation but instead at a lower elevation. Thus, he concluded that Waltman’s structures were not on Penelec’s property. Contrary to Pe-nelec’s contentions, the monument was not ignored but was taken into account by Mr. McGarvey when he established the calls in the deed. Because there was doubt as to the placement of the stream, Waltman’s experts, using the courses and distances in the County Realty deed, established the proper boundaries of Penelec’s and Waltman’s property. As the court in Baker stated, courses and distances will prevail over monuments when there is doubt as to the monument. Baker, 213 A.2d at 150. Accordingly, Pene-lec’s argument must fail. See, Baker, supra (<HOLDING>); Yoho v. Stack, 373 Pa.Super. 77, 540 A.2d 307
holding that a statute cannot be construed in a manner that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result holding that a literal interpretation should not be adhered to when it would lead to absurd results holding that a stone monument mentioned in three deeds did not prevail over courses and distances in the deeds because the monument was not free from doubt and could lead to an absurd result recognizing a court must look beyond the plain language of a statute when the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result holding that a narrow interpretation of the word fraud in tolling statute would lead to absurd and unjust results