a monument would lead to a construction plainly inconsistent with such intention. “Accordingly, courses and distances will prevail over monuments where absurd consequences might ensue by giving controlling influence to a call for the latter, or where, in any given case, a consideration of all the facts and circumstances shows a call for distance to be the more reliable or certain, or where the call for the monument was inserted by mistake or inadvertence.” Baker, 213 A.2d at 148-149. Here, Penelec contends that a stream, which is a natural monument, existed at the 1105 foot elevation. A stream did exist, but according to Mr. McGarvey’s survey the stream was not at the 1105 foot elevation as Penelec contends. Mr. McGarvey ran the course and distance calls in the County Realty deed 1988) (<HOLDING>); Howarth v. Miller, 382 Pa. 419, 115 A.2d 222
holding that where the ij finds the petitioner to be credible his testimony must be accepted holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine holding that a party failed to meet this burden when he presented no corroborating evidence by the persons who could have given testimony regarding the execution of the deed such as the person signing as witness to his signature and the notary public who subscribed as having notarized his signature or a handwriting expert in support of the contention that his signature to the deed was forged holding that monument must yield to deed description where expert testimony pertaining to the deed description was more credible and that courses and distances will prevail over monuments where the monuments are doubtful holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive