¼ corner splits into two

The only reason for 2 1/4 corners would be lotting. T and R would be helpful to look at the plats. Good Luck

Townships 13 and 14 South
Range 2 East
Salt Lake Meridian

The notes for the 1903 survey won't come up online, I'll get the BLM to correct that tomorrow. I can't get the patents to open either.

All the plats are available from the BLM Utah Website. Just Google "Utah BLM Plats" and you can get to the website from the hits list.

or here is a link

UTAH BLM Plats and Notes

Sounds like fun to me.

I am aware of a situation not far from Iola where there are two quarter corners roughly 70 feet apart. Long story, but one fits everything in the section to the west while the other fits everything in the section to the east. Also, near Parsons there is a case of two section corners about 30 feet apart. Use one to do work to the north and the other to do work to the south. Otherwise, chaos reigns.

Of course, there should be a single corner in both cases.

>
> Quarter corner between Sections 35 and 2.
>
> In 1856 GLO sets one corner. This would be Std cor. @ S1/4 S 35
> In 1874 GLO resurveys and there is one corner. This would be Std cor. @ S1/4 S 35
> In 1903 GLO resurveys and there is one corner. This would be Std cor. @ S1/4 S 35
> In 1949 GLO resurveys and sets one common corner (brass cap this time).This would be Std cor. @ S1/4 S 35 and the Destroyed mon is replaced, as close as they can to original
> In 2002 local surveyor under county contract sets two posts and caps 30 to 40 feet apart, one for Section 35 and one for Section 2 which my client showed me today. This one is probably going to get interesting especially if my clients story about other GLO markers being destroyed and moved (by surveyors) turns out to be true.
>
> Hopefully I'll find the 1949 GLO cap in place. If destroyed I'm sure it will be a good story why they replaced it with two corners. Maybe two is better than one.

The Jobs I do on Township lines, and Range lines, get a surcharge, for this stuff. Research, and field recon can eat time, if done right.

N

Did you look at the plats? Especially the original 1856 plats for both townships. Also the 1949 surveyor marked the cap as the common corner to both Section 35 and Section 2 and he got it right.

Leon,

From the looks of the Plats (and "available" notes), I can't see ANY reason for "double" 1/4 Corners.

The 1904 plat pretty much tells the tale;

According to the MTP...T14S,R2E, Section 2...

NE¼NW¼ patented in 1882 (Cash Entry)
NW¼NE¼ patented in 1891 (Homestead Entry)

Looks like somebody (surveyor) didn't do much (if any) research, or maybe there is something that we are missing (but I don't know what it would be).

Loyal

It's not every day you get a completion survey on a standard parallel. Even so I am perplexed how this got past the County Surveyor? I am looking forward to seeing the end of this story...

No, I did not look at the plaks!

Don't you know who the patron saint of surveyors? "Our Lady of Assumption" She has blessed my comments, as well as both (All 3 monuments!)

OK, that makes my point. Do what the plat actually says.

N

The new corners are county caps. Our county combined surveyor with recorder in 1990. According to the clerks records funding for a county surveyor ended in 1959. So any survey work requiring a license that has been done is by contract with a private surveyor. I'm the contract county surveyor since this March. I might no last too long as some of this stuff is pointed out. But I didn't get into this as anything to do with county surveyor. I got a client that is really ticked off about some changes made to section corners and deed lines the last 10 years or so. He says some corners have been destroyed and moved. I hope it's not so but only time and some investigation will tell. I wouldn't expect that the 1949 survey would be far off from its record (maybe a couple feet). Enough of the original markers are there to take me to where the others are, were, are should be. Client has a rubbing of a corner he says was destroyed by a surveyor. I really hope this is not true. Got a vertical hike of 800 feet to check this one out (SW Cor Sec 35).

No, I did not look at the plaks!

Yeah Nate, my experience tells me not to assume anything about any line anywhere in the PLSS. You need to look at all the plats from day one and read the notes. There is plenty of weird stuff out in the middle of townships and the boundaries are almost always complex from the simple plan.

Heck, in T13S and T14S, R2E SLM (this threads subject area) there is unsurveyed public land.

This is the second time I've heard of this in Utah. The first one also involved forged Deeds to 'clean up' the boundary problems that never really existed.

Do what it takes to look in the mirror. As you said, it might mean the end of your position but you get to keep your integrity...

Good Luck, Tom

No, I did not look at the plaks!

In Illinois, it would be common to have two corners on the township line, but Illinois and a few other nearby states are unique that every township line was corrected.

I've looked at all the plats and read all the notes available on line. The 1903 notes won't come up but I'll call and the BLM will fix that (some glitch in the indexing or something, I've called before). Also for some reason the patents won't display but you can see the date in the INDEX.

AND, the Mogo survey from 1856. Very little of that was found starting with Ferron's work in 1871. But no matter, if it wasn't resurveyed it stands (even though you can't find it) and the plat sets the rules for everything that followed which in this case I'd say there is but one common quarter corner between Sections 35 and 2.

Hopefully this will be nothing like the Box Elder County episode about ten years ago.

No, I did not look at the plaks!

I think I forgot to add the sarcasm font. But, I felt that you would catch it... (I assumed!) 🙂

All the best.

A good survey, with no foundation, is not a good survey!

🙂

N