The thread below made me recall a court case. How is one survey better than another in the eyes of the court?
Interesting outcome of a $40 survey
This copy of the case is easier to read:
Google Scholar
---------------------------
Small world department: The second surveyor, Conklin, signed the plat (1958) I've been poring over off and on for the last month.
I've been trying to understand how the numbers were arrived at, to help the LS if we decide to get the corners re-marked at our church. So far I've pretty conclusively demonstrated that on the exterior line of the plat N 89 50 E was supposed to be S 89 50 E (10 ft mis-closure). Some of the curves check well as arc-definition curves, while for others the radius matches their degree of curvature by railroad-definition, and neither definition fits right in the space on the plat.
I don't think his helpers were always on top of things, and that sort of shows in the court case cited.
This link to the county GIS may help visualize the description. I believe the western of the parcels in question is the one outlined in blue.
County Assessor GIS
That reminds me of one local surveyor who accepted a manhole as the quarter corner (it wasn't) and noted on the survey drawing something to the effect that a better survey would have involved more expense to the client.
