I'm working at reconstructing the pattern of original surveys in an area about 5 miles by 10 miles in extent where some large confusions exist. One interesting part of the puzzle is a series of surveys that were run in 1853 and 1854 by a well-known Texas surveyor named Charles de Montel for the purpose of locating various land certificates along a couple of creeks at a time when most of the lands in the vicinity were public domain.
Part of the task is figuring out how de Montel actually went about his survey. One would conclude from the field notes he filed that he never ran some lines, but almost certainly did run others. In this case, the numbering he assigned to his surveys and the dating of their field notes gives a clue as to how he organized his survey, but there is one anomaly. What do you suppose the actual date was on which Survey 103 was run? (The two names appearing below the date are those Mr. de Montel gave as his chain carriers).
Survey 98
Survey 100
Survey 103
Survey 104
Dang, did John Hancock write that?
When did he file them? Could he have slipped up and wrote the date he was drafting the filing paperwork instead of the date of survey for 103? Or was there something that delayed the work on 103 so he went on to 104 and finished 103 in the spring?
> Dang, did John Hancock write that?
The last three are in de Montel's handwriting. He was born in Prussia in 1812 and his handwriting has a definite German accent.
Here's a link to his bio in The Handbook of Texas:
Charles de Montel bio
1854
Consider the sequence:
Survey 98, 27 October, 1853
Survey 100, 28 October, 1853
Survey 103, 29 April, 1854
Survey 104, 29 October, 1853
It is highly unlikely 103 would have been done 29, April 1853, since it is too far ahead of sequence. That it was delayed 6 months from other surveys in order of assigning numbers is not a stretch. Perhaps he was waiting for a retainer, proper documentaion of the warrant, the owner to be present or the hostiles to leave the premises. He may have received remuneration from adjacent landowers to ensure their parcels being senior. Is is clear he did not do all surveys in the order received, since 99, 101 and 102 were also done on other dates.
1854 is the more reasonable date based om what little information you have shared.
Paul in PA
The land certificate that de Montel was locating as Survey 103 had been issued in 1850 and subsequently transfered prior to location. It was apparently noted after de Montel's survey that the certificate for Survey 103 was only good for 480 acres, not the 640 acres that de Montel had located (and to which the holder of the certificate was apparently otherwise entitled).
The 1850 certificate was canceled and reissued for 640 acres on April 21, 1854. If de Montel was able to receive the certificate by overland mail (there was no railroad between the GLO in Austin and San Antonio in the 1850's), and mount an expedition among the Texas Indians of the Brush Country just to survey a section of land, that would probably set a record.
The most plausible explanation is that de Montel made the location of Survey 103 in October, 1853 and just revised the date of his field notes when eventually he had the reissued certificate in hand. The names of the chain carriers are an excellent clue since they varied from engagement to engagement.
1853
> It is highly unlikely 103 would have been done 29, April 1853, since it is too far ahead of sequence.
I agree. The most probable date is the 29th of October, 1853. If you look carefully, you can see the erasures.
The "4" in 1854 appears to me to have very little in common with the rest of his hand. Maybe it's just the resolution on the jpeg, but the April almost looks like an out also.
What's your theory, Kent?
oops, just read your theory, posted whilst I were peckin' on the keyboard..
> The "4" in 1854 appears to me to have very little in common with the rest of his hand. Maybe it's just the resolution on the jpeg, but the April almost looks like an out also.
Yes, the "4" appears to have been written in a way to distract the examiner from the fact that there had been a "3" under it. I'm under the impression that that the basic technology of erasing ink from paper in 1853 was scraping it off with a sharp pen knife, so I'd suppose that was what Mr. de Montel did to save himself the labor of recopying the field notes.
If this turns out to be some major point of contention (highly unlikely), I'll examine the original at the GLO. There should be some evidence of thinning of the paper where the "October" and "3" would have been scraped off.
Is This In Fact A Survey Update ?
Maybe the title company wanted to save money, more likely the realtor.
BTW, are 103 and 104 in close proximity?
Paul in PA
Is This In Fact A Survey Update ?
> BTW, are 103 and 104 in close proximity?
Yes, Surveys 103 and 104 are very near to each other and would have been connected by lines that appear to have been run in the series that Mr. de Montel located.
> I'm working at reconstructing the pattern of original surveys in an area about 5 miles by 10 miles in extent where some large confusions exist. One interesting part of the puzzle is a series of surveys that were run in 1853 and 1854 by a well-known Texas surveyor named Charles de Montel for the purpose of locating various land certificates along a couple of creeks at a time when most of the lands in the vicinity were public domain.
By the way, one interesting part of this problem is that some of the original surveys from 1853 exist as phantoms only. They were found to be in gross conflict with some existing surveys and the certificates under which they had been made were "floated" to another location with no patent ever issued on the earlier location, of course. However, the corners of the 1853 phantoms may still exist on the ground and show where the 1853 surveyor actually did run lines. It's entirely possible that certain lines and corners of surveys to which patents were issued can be proven by these phantoms of abandoned locations.
It is interesting thathe 'Frenchified" his name like early German immigrants to Louisiana did to assimilate into the culture.
from a local history site:
The original Germans were absorbed into the French culture and their names were changed from Heidel to Haydel, Himmel to Hymel, Huber to Oubre, Wishner to Vicknair, Zweig to LaBranche, Troxler to Trosclair, and Zehringer to Zeringue (to name a few)
I am curious to the type of equipmnet that he used with such a small survey party considering the risks etc..
> I am curious to the type of equipmnet that he used with such a small survey party considering the risks etc..
Oh, I doubt very much that the entire surveying party consisted of just Mr. de Montel and two chain carriers. The chain carriers were mentioned because surveyors were required by statute to give their names.
As to equipment, Charles de Montel was almost certainly running his lines with a vernier compass adjusted for the variation that he reported on his field notes.
Kent
Although I've never worked as a Land Surveyor in Texas I have friends who are licensed there. I've been told of some "questionable" original surveys that can be identified by the name of a chain carrier. I can't remember the name but it was a Spanish surname. Do you know anything of this? I certainly don't mean to cast aspersions on the early Texas surveyors, we certainly had our share in Georgia (see the Pine Barrens fraud).
Andy
Surely this isn't a novel incident for you, to see that the locating surveyor made multiple locations in an area, and they all have the same date of survey.
It's very common in East Texas, and those lines were run on the ground.
> Surely this isn't a novel incident for you, to see that the locating surveyor made multiple locations in an area, and they all have the same date of survey.
>
> It's very common in East Texas, and those lines were run on the ground.
The fact that several surveys were made on the same day is hardly the indication that they weren't run on the ground. Mr. de Montel and his party could have easily made more than several miles a day of line run in the terrain across which they were working.
The clues that some lines weren't run are:
- some corners give calls for stakes with marked BTs and with passing calls on creeks and branches along at least one line running to them.
- at other corners de Montel merely called for a "stake & mound" and gave no passing calls on either line running to the corner that would show he was on the ground there, and
- consideration of the plan of de Montel's survey shows that various of the "stake & mound" corners were most likely located by office calculation.
So, in short, Mr. de Montel's own record is most consistent with three or fewer sides of a survey having been actually run on the ground.
While that may be true, as you just mentioned, that country may not have had a tree accessible. The general presumption, when retracing any footsteps, is that the surveyor did what he said he did, until you can PROVE he didn't. In this case, I don't think you'll ever prove he didn't.
Kent
> Although I've never worked as a Land Surveyor in Texas I have friends who are licensed there. I've been told of some "questionable" original surveys that can be identified by the name of a chain carrier. I can't remember the name but it was a Spanish surname. Do you know anything of this?
I've never actually seen any field notes on which Dolores Garcia was listed as chain carrier, but I believe that's the name you may have heard. The reality is that across much of West Texas the majority of original surveys were protracted surveys. The "stake" and "stake & mound" corners that the surveyors called for without any actual suggestion such as calls for topographic features were typically fictitious. This is what gives West Texas surveying such an interesting character even today as part of the exercise is trying to figure out :
- what the locating surveyor actually did, and
- what the locating surveyor actually had knowledge of.
> It is interesting thathe 'Frenchified" his name like early German immigrants to Louisiana did to assimilate into the culture.
I trust you noted that he studied at the Sorbonne.
