This afternoon I spent a bit of time in the field at a job that I started work on last week. One of the tasks included searching the projected position where the County Surveyor who in 1877 had subdivided this 4,300 acre tract into about 26 lots had showed one of the corners of the original land grant falling.
The projected coordinates were approximate. I had accurate coordinates on the position of a lot corner of the 1877 subdivision that the 1877 surveyor had reported as falling 492 varas N45°E from the corner I was after. That lot corner, however, was a 1938 resurveyor's idea of where the lot corner fell, not the original mark. The 1938 surveyor's field book indicated that he hadn't actually tied the land grant corner, but had run the corner in from an old fence corner nearly a mile NE.
I guess it's better to be lucky than good, though, because at 490.980 varas from the 1938 surveyor's corner, there was in fact a very old stone mound corner with a 2 inch cedar stake in it, buried by soil that had washed in, but otherwise intact.
For the Easterners who need some asphalt in the photo, here is the setting. The corner 490.980 varas away was up the hill, approximately 18 varas higher in elevation. 
Here's another view of the vicinity of the corner with a motor vehicle in view. (I looked for some other familiar urban stuff, but couldn't find any, sorry.)
And here is the closeup of the corner with a new rod and cap monument driven in the position of the base of the decayed cedar stake. There were more stones below, but I decided not to fully excavate the mound to expose them. The probe was sufficient for my purposes.
BTW to get a bit of the flavor of this exercise, here's a copy of the plat of the 1877 subdivision as it appears in the public record. The stake and mound corner I found this afternoon is what I take to be the reentrant corner on the East line of Lot 22. That indentation originated in a conflict that had in 1872 been reported to exist between the W.P. Corbin Survey and a senior survey to the East.
The 1938 surveyor didn't get lucky. He knew about the corner, maybe from another job or he just didn't note his measurements to it. Maybe he could see it from several points and triangulated it. It would be interesting to see if the four feet you find different is typical for most lots in the subdivision.
I agree Kris. Perhaps it was a part of his own bigger local network... sometimes our predecessors were much more sophisticated than we realize.
> The 1938 surveyor didn't get lucky. He knew about the corner, maybe from another job or he just didn't note his measurements to it. Maybe he could see it from several points and triangulated it.
LOL! I actually have a copy of his private field book, so I know exactly what he did. He didn't make a tie to this corner. His files show that in fact he had never tied to that corner. It actually was luck on the chaining. If it makes you feel any better, the alignment of his location for the lot corner 490.980 varas away, up the hill, wasn't that great and will probably have to be corrected.
Well, not every corner I've tied for a job shows up in THAT field book. Laugh all you want, but he knew something more that what is in the book and files.
> Well, not every corner I've tied for a job shows up in THAT field book.
Kris, this particular surveyor was quite careful about keeping a record of what he did and why he did it. His field book clearly describes the basis upon which he placed the lot corners that he did, warts and all. I think that you're overlooking how rural surveying was practiced in 1938. It wasn't COGO magic of the sort you may have in mind. It was actually running out the lines and chaining the tie distances.
If the 1938 surveyor had known of an original corner only 492 varas or so from the lot he was working on, it is a 100% certainty that he would have noted it in his field book, used it in his work, and shown it on his map.
Guys!
If Kent caught you pissing next to a tree, he would correct even that. Kent can do everything much better than anyone else.. I think that fact must have slipped your mind.
Guys!
> If Kent caught you pissing next to a tree, he would correct even that. Kent can do everything much better than anyone else.. I think that fact must have slipped your mind.
Paul, if you don't have anything relevant to say on the topic of this thread, why not start your own thread? TIA.
Guys!
> Paul, if you don't have anything relevant to say on the topic of this thread, why not start your own thread? TIA.
IMO..It was very relevant, but I'll not post further Kent on this post.
Kent,
A very nice find. What kind of probe do you use for your soil types? Do you think that stake dates to 1877 or is it something that was stuck in the pile at a later time?
Also appreciated the modern improvements in the background as for an easterner like me, it made the corner look not so lonely, 🙂
Jim
Have you recovered any other originals from the Corbin Tract, and if so how do they fit? Just curious as to the accuracy of the old survey. Looks like nice country.
DJJ
"very old stone mound corner with a 2 inch cedar stake in it"
Just where would one find a "CEDAR" stake in Texas back in 1877? Would those have been imported from the Old World specifically for survey monumentation purposes???
Inquiring minds want to know...
🙂
Loyal
> A very nice find. What kind of probe do you use for your soil types? Do you think that stake dates to 1877 or is it something that was stuck in the pile at a later time?
At this point, I think that the stake and mound was probably placed in 1877. The decayed condition of the stake is certainly consistent with something of 1880 vintage or earlier.
For the clay soils where I mainly have to probe for buried corners, I've had good luck with a probe fabricated of 1/2" smooth steel rod. It has a tee handle welded on and braced to the 42" long probe section. I'll take a photo of it. For sandier, looser soils, just a commercial tile probe would probably work fine.
> Just where would one find a "CEDAR" stake in Texas back in 1877?
In most of Central Texas, the better question is where would you NOT have found the material for cedar stakes in 1877. :>
In that locality, the stake is probably the wood of Juniperus ashei which was and is commonly known as Cedar, Mountain Cedar, and Texas Cedar.
Okay...so it's NOT a “cedar” stake at all, but some unknown variety (species) of juniper that is locally “known as” (misidentified as) “cedar.”
🙂
Loyal
It's probably not from the Cedars of Lebanon.
We find a lot of old fence posts that look just like that.
DJJ
> Have you recovered any other originals from the Corbin Tract, and if so how do they fit? Just curious as to the accuracy of the old survey. Looks like nice country.
That stake and mound shown in the photo may well prove out to be an original corner of the William P. Corbin Survey. The unusual feature of the Corbin Survey is that although it was surveyed under a valid headright certificate in 1838 (the date that in this case determines the seniority of the survey), the patent was later canceled and a new patent issued in 1872 to remove that portion of the Corbin Survey that was in conflict with a survey that actually was not senior (I've been studying these details this morning).
In 1877, when County Surveyor John E. Campbell was subdividing the Corbin Survey as shown on the plat above, he also evidently found that the conflict which had been supposed to exist in 1872 was non-existent and there was a flurry of paperwork as that land that had originally been part of the Corbin Survey until the cancellation of the patent was patented as a separate survey. So, it is also possible that the stake and mound is Mr. Campbell's from 1877.
As I continue to unravel this one, I'll have a better idea of how well Mr. Campbell ran his lines and his chainmen measured.
No line o the horizon
[flash width=480 height=385] http://www.youtube.com/v/7tQKxWCjZTU?fs=1&hl=en_US [/flash]
