-
Things I have learned from other surveyors
When retracing a GLO survey, in the PLSS, your search zone should be dictated by many factors. One is to take a good look at the N-S SPM (North South Single Proportionate Measure) Also, make a coord at 1320′ from all existing corners, and reciprocals thereof. ie, 1320′ 2640′ 3960′ and make a search circle there. This often distorts things, but we are looking for evidence. You never know who FOUND the original, and then MEASURED off it, 1320′, (Wrong procedure, correct monument) Your goal is to FIND all evidence. Of good and bad corners. When all is lost, and there really is nothing left of the original, then take a good look at a position that does not tear up the neighborhood.
One of the purposes of surveying, is to BUILD America. Not just to “Be right”.
When Payden put his post up, about “Whose Right” this all sort of fell out of the thought chamber!
N
-
18 Replies
-
Nate,
You tend toward ‘stream of consciousness’ at times. I like it, and this is one of your better ones.
-
Also, remember that some errors come in 33 and 66-foot lengths.
Working a section now that has a north quarter corner one chain too far east of the northwest section corner. Northwest to northeast is almost a perfect 5280 but the north line of the northwest quarter is close to 2706.
-
O, I left off the credits, on my above post. Credit goes to James R Cole, of Dequeen area. I was working down below Murfreesboro, AR, and he had SPM’d (N-S) a Section corner. I called him, and asked about why he had not DPM’d (Double Proportionate Measure) it in. This led to this conversation.
James R is in a rest home, last I heard. But, the thoughts he placed in my head that day, are still rolling in my head. -
What is really fun is figuring out where the first guy started out that measured 1320 for his quarter mile. Did he start at the section corner or the quarter corner? Have found that situation many times when attempting to find a quarter-quarter corner. Take my example from above with an extra 66 feet in the half mile. It’ll give you three search areas. 1320 from one end, 1320 from the other end, and the midpoint.
-
Nate The Surveyor, post: 349144, member: 291 wrote: O, I left off the credits, on my above post. Credit goes to James R Cole, of Dequeen area. I was working down below Murfreesboro, AR, and he had SPM’d (N-S) a Section corner. I called him, and asked about why he had not DPM’d (Double Proportionate Measure) it in. This led to this conversation.
James R is in a rest home, last I heard. But, the thoughts he placed in my head that day, are still rolling in my head.Nate,
Ron died in 2012…“James Ronald Cole, 71, of Texarkana, AR, formerly of DeQueen, AR, died Sunday, May 27, 2012, in a local nursing center. He was born October 14, 1940, and was a retired land surveyor.”
DDSM
-
Thanks Dan. I did not know. Several yrs ago, I tried to contact him. The only way some of this stuff will occur to “Young uns” is to ask and tell stuff. That in part is what I love about this forum!!
-
Holy, that’s weird, you would think after they checked into the NE corner they would have fixed it on the way back.:whistle:
-
Oh, I’m sure they never took shortcuts (there’s a significant kink in the line, too). :whistle::whistle:
-
I sure wish something like this forum had been available 30 years ago when I was one of those young bucks.
Information, and tons of it, is available at our fingertips 24-7.
-
“In the construction of all deeds and grants, there is one essential object to be kept in view, and that is to ascertain the true intent of the grantor, and to give full effect to that intention when not contrary to law. All rules of construction adopted by the courts are simply means to a given end, being those methods of reasoning which experience has taught are best calculated to lead to that intention. Hence all authorities unite in saying that no rule can be invoked, no matter how correct in its general application, that tends to defeat the intention of the grantor. This doctrine is of such universal acceptance as to require but few citations, more to illustrate its extent than to prove its existence.” -Tucker v. Satterthwaite, 123 N.C. 511 (1898), 31 S.E. 722, 727
“In Smith v. Parkhurst, 3 Atk. 135, Lord Chief Justice Wills says: ÛÏAnother maxim is that such a construction should be made of the words of a deed as is most agreeable to the intention of the grantor. The words are not the principal thing in a deed, but the intent and design of the grantor. We have no power, indeed, to alter the words or to insert words which are not in the deed, but we may and ought to construe the words in a manner the most agreeable to the meaning of the grantor, and may reject any words that are merely insensible. Those maxims, my lords, are founded upon the greatest authority, Coke, Plowden, and Lord Chief Justice Hale, and the law commends the astutia-the cunning-of judges in construing words in such a manner as shall best answer the intent. The art of construing words in such a manner as shall destroy the intent may show the ingenuity of, but is very ill becoming, a judge.Û -Tucker v. Satterthwaite, 123 N.C. 511 (1898), 31 S.E. 722, 727
-
Lawd a mighty! Don’t let Kent see this. He thinks you can read anything you want into a written document, like certain things involving how not to survey in Texas. :whistle::-P:-D
-
The dissent criticizes this at 724 & 725:
“…and cannot be located by a reversed survey. To locate a line, the original order of survey must be observed and followed, and a posterior line cannot be controlled by a reversed survey. This rule is too firmly established by numerous decisions of this court to be disputed now. *725 Duncan v. Hall, 117 N. C. 443, 23 S. E. 362; Norwood v. Crawford, 114 N. C. 513, 19 S. E. 349; Graybeal v. Powers, 76 N. C. 66; Harry v. Graham, 18 N. C. 76. It is the Smith grant that we are locating, and it is the northern boundary line which is in dispute. This line is not bounded by the Jordan grant, and cannot be located by a survey of that grant.”Dissent at 728:
“It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that, to locate a line, the original order of survey must be observed and followed, and that a posterior line cannot be controlled by a reversed survey,-citing us to Duncan v. Hall, 117 N. C. 443, 23 S. E. 362; Norwood v. Crawford, 114 N. C. 513, 19 S. E. 349; Graybeal v. Powers, 76 N. C. 66; and Harry v. Graham, 18 N. C. 76. This is undoubtedly the general rule, but every one of these cases recognizes the principle that the rule does not apply where the posterior line is more certain than the prior line, and would more clearly indicate the intent of the grantor. See above cases, 18 N. C. 79, line 7; 114 N. C. 518, line 1 of opinion, 19 S. E. 349, and 114 N. C. 520, line 2, 19 S. E. 350; 117 N. C. 446, line 3, 23 S. E. 362. Graybeal v. Powers does not seem to touch this point. I think the true rule is laid down in Harry v. Graham, supra, as cited by Chief Justice Pearson in Safret v. Hartman, 52 N. C. 199, in which it was held that the survey could be reversed, to wit: ÛÏIt was decided in that case (Harry v. Graham, 18 N. C. 76) that a posterior line could not be reversed, in order, by its intersection with a prior line, to show the corner, unless such posterior line was certain, because to do so would be to extend the distance of the prior by the course of the posterior line. The chance of mistake resting on one or the other being equal, it was deemed proper to follow the order in which the survey was made. But the court say: Û÷So if, even upon such calls as this deed contains, a line of marked trees was found, by tracing the line back from the post oak, corresponding with the survey of the 300-acre patent, that might carry the other line to the point of intersection, because it would prove an actual survey, and be the evidence of permanent natural objects, to show where the black oak once actually stood, which, wherever it stood, would be the terminus, and control the distance mentioned in the deed.Ûª See, also, Dobson v. Finley, 53 N. C. 495, and Cowles v. Reavis, 109 N. C. 417, 13 S. E. 930.” -
Despite all of TDD’s warnings to the contrary, I have learned that proper intake of water throughout the work day is essential to keeping the brain cells working properly.
-
He got dehydrated, and said things out of place to the moderator, and got banned. So, keep yourself hydrated!
-
One of the best things that I learned while working on a field crew was “If the bearing and distance helped me find the corner then the bearing and distance are good.”
This was from my old party chief while we were re-running the 500 mile boundary of a reservoir for the Army Corps of Engineers.
-
Running a level loop and closing flat does not mean you did a perfect job.
-
30+ years ago, most conversations of this form were had at a tailgate party at the end of day or on some rainy day between company crews and on a convergence of many company crews that had scheduled yearly gatherings around projects that kept them all busy and as I remember the first Surveyor Association meetings were a beer kegger and fishfry at some oil company lake lot. Pretty sure half the BOR was in attendance, oh the memories.
B-) -
Nate The Surveyor, post: 349118, member: 291 wrote: [SNIP] Your goal is to FIND all evidence. Of good and bad corners. When all is lost, and there really is nothing left of the original, then take a good look at a position that does not tear up the neighborhood.
One of the purposes of surveying, is to BUILD America. Not just to “Be right”.
When Payden put his post up, about “Whose Right” this all sort of fell out of the thought chamber!
N [/SNIP]
I cannot count the number of times where incorrect conclusions/positions resulted from a lack- sometimes serious lack- of RESEARCH, both office and field.
Just recently my excellent co-worker and I conducted an extensive field search for evidence relating to two highway R/W alignments from 1922 and 1949, respectively. It was in a fairly rural area where the existing (1922) roadway had been partially acquired by the river. The 1949 alignment had never been built but because of the “interim” emergency realignment, its location needed to be positively determined. Fortunately, the 1949 field book existed and we were able to locate a stump called out for. Although the complete nail in this stump mentioned in the field book could not be found, the Schonstedt “rang” close to where we had calculated it to be. This evidence proved invaluable for a number of reasons, one of which we were able to show that a plat approved 40 years ago appeared to be encroaching by several feet into state DOT R/W. I won’t bore y’all with details on the 1922 alignment as it may wear out my keyboard.
I’ve seen numerous records of survey showing the as-built location of roadways as being the best available evidence; I will only do so as a last resort. The best available evidence isn’t necessarily the most readily accessible.
For the record, I’m a state DOT surveyor who is not yet licensed but I do feel that I have a FUNDAMENTAL responsibility to the public and the adjoiners to our R/W (who are also every bit as much of the public interest), to ascertain the R/W boundaries to the best of my ability which often requires EXHAUSTIVE research. In fact this holds true whether it pertains to highway R/W, PLSS corners, or anything else pertaining to surveying since as a government agency we are assumed correct by our very position (insert snickers and catcalls here).
Just my opinion, for what it’s worth.
The only superior evidence is that which you haven’t yet found.
Log in to reply.