-
Uncommon tract history (here)
A current project involves a roughly 240-acre tract which consists of the entire southeast quarter of the subject section and the west half of the northeast quarter of the same section. In this area the most typical patent was for one of the primary quarters of a section. Later, someone might split a quarter into two 80’s, either north-south or east-west. Quite a few would later end up with a couple of quarter-quarters somewhere. Most parcels have gone through a long list of owners over the past 150 years. So, the standard case for the tract I’m to survey is that you have a dozen different owners for the southeast quarter and a dozen different owners for the west half of the northeast corner before they both have the same owner.
Not this time. An 1882 survey by the County Surveyor set the center corner and reset most of the exterior government corners and also monumented the division of the northeast quarter as mentioned plus monumented the division of the southwest quarter into a north half and a south half. He labeled the ownership of each tract. It turns out these two pieces had a single owner at that time. That got my attention. Did a quick search of the index book and discovered the combination came together in 1868. They were never separated. Now, that is extremely rare in this area.
After the survey they will still be linked. I am to take the crop land in the southeast part of the west half of the northeast quarter and put it with most of the southeast quarter while taking the pasture land in the west end of the southeast quarter and putting it with the majority of the west half of the northeast quarter. The result will be a parcel that is practically all crop land and another that is practically all pasture land.
-
6 Replies
-
I take it you are doing a metes and bounds survey?
Paul in metes and bounds PA
-
Something like that. The standard is all metes and no bounds just like every other description on file. None of that high-falutin’ Texas-style, 10,000-word stuff around here. Everything is shown on the plat, including the description. The plat gets filed and the magic string of words is placed on a deed by someone else. That description will be used for eternity or until a further subdivision is needed.
-
Holy Cow, post: 346127, member: 50 wrote: ..None of that high-falutin’ Texas-style, 10,000-word stuff around here..
You mean you don’t have surveyors around that might dig up your rebar then totally discount its authenticity because it’s only 17 1/2″ long when your survey stated 18″, requiring, of course, an entirely new boundary workup all the way from the Principal Meridian ?
-
To the best of my knowledge, there are none working this area who have a cob shoved up their a**.
I reviewed a half dozen survey plats yesterday and every one was very good. The descriptions could have been written by the same person. Begin (or commence) at a specific government corner and thence (based on a specified basis of bearings) this way so far, thence that way so far, thence this other way so far, thence some other direction so far, thence thataway so far to the point of beginning; containing xx.xxx acres, more or less, including the right-of-way of suchandsuch county road. A few of the courses include mention of running along a specific section line, quarter section line or quarter-quarter section line. The plat shows the monuments found or set at each corner with a brief description (not 800 words, ala Austinian dictate) as well as other monuments controlling the situation. Reference to other surveys by record book and page is the norm. If the current plat doesn’t show you everything you want to know, you can look up the record surveys to see what additional guidance they may provide on why things are the way they are instead of the way a mathemagician might think they should be.
An additional comment on my current survey project. It is in a Section 2 so there are government lots along the north line. The gubmit contracted surveyor in 1865 had a rather poor imagination. The reported length of the east side of the northeast quarter is 40.00 chains. Granted, that is possible but extremely unlikely. Anywhere from 36 to 44 is far more likely depending on the care taken by all involved. Also, every corner but one is a post in mound except for the south quarter corner. It is said to be an 18″ x 15″ x 4″ limestone. The 1882 surveyor reported this location was atop a massive chunk of exposed bedrock and, therefore, placed reference stones 33 links south and north of the true corner.
-
I’m workin in a Section 35 right now. It came from the north (a strange township due to mountainous terrain). It closes on the senior township to the south. The south half is only 550′ in north-south dimension. The south closing corner to 34 and 35 is several hundred feet west of the north corner to 2 and 3.
-
“The reported length of the east side of the northeast quarter is 40.00 chains. Granted, that is possible but extremely unlikely. Anywhere from 36 to 44 is far more likely depending on the care taken by all involved.”
I don’t know how common it was in other areas, but the 1870’s surveys around here never seemed to actually “close” on the north twp. line. Later (1880 and later) surveys set closing corners that might actually be recoverable with actual field distances. But the earlier surveys seem to blast past this detail with reckless abandon. “40.0 ch.” on one of the earlier surveys merely meant “we didn’t do squat” and away they went on their merry way. I’ve seen actual closing distances to be hundreds of feet different that what was reported in the notes.
With the mainly open prairie field conditions, that is a good indication nobody chained anything.
Log in to reply.