Rivers vs etc.. I don't have the energy

Timeline:
1947 - County Surveyor identifies original section corners (4).
1948 - County Surveyor single proportions in North, South and East quarter section corners.
1948 - Moorhead Engineering identifies "proven original" west quarter section corner, at the same time sets a nail and tag at single proportionate position.
1965 - Moorhead subdivides Section and sets corners of southeast quarter of southwest quarter of Section based on nail and tag as west quarter section corner.
1985 - BLM does a large dependent resurvey accepting all 7 County Surveyor concrete monuments while disregarding Moorhead nail and tag but establishes Moorhead "proven original" quarter section corner substantially south of the mid-point of the west line.
198? - Persons unknown set aluminum monument at least at the SW1/16th corner.
1986 - Surveyor Britt accepts aluminum monument at SW 1/16th corner (doesn't note stamping so no idea who set it). Measuring 400' south from it indicates boundary between Rivers and Lozeau should be 29' south of where it had been understood to be located.
1989 - Appellate Court finds for Lozeau.
1990 to present - Surveyors discuss propriety of decision.

Dave - Thank you, I understand the history; it's the never ending discussion that amazes me.
🙂
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed. Because, really, isn't the ability to be amazed one of the most wonderful features of our existence?

I'm sorry that I complained.

Don

Don,

Your avatar is upside down. 🙂

alan

Don't be sorry; it is an important case, even tho the most abominable case that I have ever read.

The language used by the court only demonstrated that they did not have a clue and accepted the bogus theory of the expert surveyor.

My problem is that their statements did not know the difference between section lines and subd. of sec. lines.

Read it again and you will understand that problem.

Keith

:good:
You're right,Alan.
I can't deny it.
🙂
Don

Thanks, Keith, you're a good one.
A crusty, tedious, annoying and pugnacious one, to be sure.
But, still, a good one; and we're all happy that you're here.

Don

Would it not be a hoot if BLM Cadastral Management decided that this State Court Case was not in the interest of BLM?

And they even convinced the Director, BLM of that opinion.

Gee, can't imagine the consequences to that hoot!

Keith

The court said:

Sections were divided into squares of quarter sections containing 160 acres. The quarter-quarter section corners are placed on the line connecting the section and quarter-section corners, and midway between them. Although theoretically conceived and invisible, these lines are not merely theoretical concepts but are real lines, actually run and marked on the ground with terminal points monuments by surveyors acting under the authority of the cadastral engineer of the Bureau of Land Management.

Let's examine the timeline:

The original official plat of Section 15, T14S R24E was accepted by the Surveyor General in 1837. As a surveyor, you can examine this plat and see that there are not even protracted quarter lines indicated. No quarter posts are shown on the plat, not even tick marks. It's clear, as a matter of fact, that the court got it completely wrong in assuming that the quarter lines were not just theoretically conceived, but were actually run on the ground. There was no Manual in 1837 and no BLM, and no BLM cadastral engineer. The BLM was not created until 1946. None of these "actual" lines relied upon by the court were ever run on the ground in Section 15 by the BLM, or it's predecessor the GLO.

No deputy surveyor in 1835 (when the township was actually surveyed on the ground) was going to go beyond his instructions and survey in the quarter lines for free! After all, he was only getting paid by instructions for the actual mileage surveyed at $3 per mile and the quarter lines weren't included. No quarter lines, no center quarter. It was left for the patentee to deal with that.

So the court completely blew the timeline of the case because it was left to it's own devices and some law clerk looked up the current manual, read the "rules" and ignored the facts. It's the fault of River's attorney, of course because you provide the court with facts and don't let it wander around in ignorance.

There are many more errors in this case but as the first and underlying assumption of the court was in error regarding the facts, the whole substance of it rests on the first.

So why is this case so popular with textbook authors?

> The court said:
>
> Sections were divided into squares of quarter sections containing 160 acres. The quarter-quarter section corners are placed on the line connecting the section and quarter-section corners, and midway between them. Although theoretically conceived and invisible, these lines are not merely theoretical concepts but are real lines, actually run and marked on the ground with terminal points monuments by surveyors acting under the authority of the cadastral engineer of the Bureau of Land Management.
>
> Let's examine the timeline:
>
> The original official plat of Section 15, T14S R24E was accepted by the Surveyor General in 1837. As a surveyor, you can examine this plat and see that there are not even protracted quarter lines indicated. No quarter posts are shown on the plat, not even tick marks. It's clear, as a matter of fact, that the court got it completely wrong in assuming that the quarter lines were not just theoretically conceived, but were actually run on the ground. There was no Manual in 1837 and no BLM, and no BLM cadastral engineer. The BLM was not created until 1946. None of these "actual" lines relied upon by the court were ever run on the ground in Section 15 by the BLM, or it's predecessor the GLO.
>
> No deputy surveyor in 1835 (when the township was actually surveyed on the ground) was going to go beyond his instructions and survey in the quarter lines for free! After all, he was only getting paid by instructions for the actual mileage surveyed at $3 per mile and the quarter lines weren't included. No quarter lines, no center quarter. It was left for the patentee to deal with that.
>
> So the court completely blew the timeline of the case because it was left to it's own devices and some law clerk looked up the current manual, read the "rules" and ignored the facts. It's the fault of River's attorney, of course because you provide the court with facts and don't let it wander around in ignorance.
>
> There are many more errors in this case but as the first and underlying assumption of the court was in error regarding the facts, the whole substance of it rests on the first.

Carl:

Read John G, McEntyre, Land Survey Systems, Tiffins Instructions 1815 and following pages relating to specific instructions up through the years.

Because It Proves The Contrary

Division is a good way to get attention.

OOPS, did I just say we should bring P&R back?

Paul in PA

Charles-

What is your point?

I have rerun many sections in the First Meridian Survey from the original notes and know the Instructions of 1815 nearly by heart. I have taught it here in Ohio for the PLSO.

If I am missing something, I'm always open to learning something new.

I have no idea. What do you think?

It could be confirmation bias.

There was no Manual in 1837 and no BLM, and no BLM cadastral engineer. The BLM was not created until 1946.

There were specific instructions issued to the Deputy Surveyors to follow up through the years following those by Tiffin in 1815. Right, there was no BLM, but there was the General Land Office until 1946 and a Surveyor General. I don't agree with with your statement above.

I think it is a popular case for several reasons.
a) it leads into a good discussion of what is acceptable evidence of a section corner.
b) it clearly defines the role of original and following surveyors.
c) it emphasizes the fact that court cases hinge on professional testimony (or lack thereof)
d) It is contrary to what most surveyors would believe is a "good" court decision and this leads to discussion.
e) It's a state supreme court decision and is likely to be followed by other courts.

😉

Actually, it's not even a State Supreme court case. It's an Appeals Court case. Rivers apparently gave up after he lost half the disputed land in County Court, and the rest on his appeal.

But you're right, it does get a lot of attention nationally, the survey mags, continuing ed., and national law books. I don't think anyone has dove as deep into the facts of the case as we have here, though.