Deral
who says it couldn't have been set as a random traverse point, that happened to fall close to the corner? More durable than a stake and lath, hub and tack or a 60d or a rr spike.
> Does Keith accept the original stone one year, then Pablo's monument the next?
>
> Is this supposed to mean something?
>
> Keith
It was meant as an example of what might happen when someone buries a monument and sets their own in a different location. I hope you weren't offended, it certainly wasn't meant that way; and I'm sorry for using your name if it did offend you.
Deral
Well, that is a good point, but I've never set anything other than a 60d (obvious to us as a traverse point) or hub with tack.
This just seems a more permanent point for some reason. Deliberate and long standing for someone else to find, as happened.
Hmm. So reliance is not only by land owners but by surveyors it seems. Let's ponder that a moment. Reliance...Another word for honoring...For accepting...What we find by using our monumental brains and searching an area where we expect to perhaps find something.
We have reliance, acceptance by the land owners and sometimes we have reliance, acceptance by surveyors.
Someone set this point in the long lost past that was for a corner, or at least it seems to me. They failed to get the math and geometry correct to our current standards but this point was set for a reason.
Deral
Have ran traverses for the USACE using 1 1/2" pipe with a brass screws and washers set in concrete placed in the pipe, the washer was stamped with a traverse code and point number. Some of them remain today and as we were retracing the GLO, some of those pipes were at the location of recovered evidence and some just near where we thought the corners should have been, that way we had better control to take a closer look later. Some of those traverse points have been accepted as a GLO corners that were never intended to be anything more than a traverse point. That practice is no longer used, but in the 70's we set a bunch of them.
jud
Deral
One time, I was out surveying, (Yeah, right, not posting on some forum!) and I found a stake about 10' WEST of a 1/16 corner, and maybe 2' south. I eventually came to the point that I had to know what was going on. The CLIENT told me that he and his brother in law had measured down there, and that was their ESTIMATE at the corner. It was a wood stake, and a big spike nail. It seems that BIL had worked on a survey crew before, and knew a bit about chaining, and he wanted to know how far off it was. I told them, and they said that "They had paid 1200.00 for that 10' of land, because that was where they had put it, JUST LAST WEEK.
My point is, that without a pedigree, it is a piece of metal.
IF a surveyor USES it, then it begins to HAVE pedigree.
N
Deral
Well Nate if anyone uses it...Land Owners...Then it has a pedigree. No matter a surveyor was not involved.
Two men agree on a point, land owners, then its the mark. And should be honored.
That us little morons with PLS next to our names means nothing.
Sometimes we should just listen instead of measuring stuff.
Deral
I'm not buying someone setting this to see if they stayed off state lands.
Actually, in this case, there are a number or reasons they would want to avoid the state. And they might well want a more stable mark than just a lath. There were a series of exploration projects right there and there are permitting issues with public vs. private lands. Avoiding the state land in this situation might be very important. But, they have an extensive coordinate list of everything they located and this doesn't show up on it, or in the files of their land people.
Hold it and roll on. There are more important things in life to worry about, like why the Texas Longhorns aren't in first, how the Aggies keep winning, why the sky is blue, or just what exactly is the perfect temperature for Shiner Bock beer.
🙂
Write a report, right after you hold the monuments, and move on brother. 🙂
Deral
You are assuming it's been relied on. Moe hasn't demonstrated any landowner knowledge or acknowledgement. Of this point. Until last August, it was unknown to anyone involved, save the individual who set it. If Moe accepts it. Will he not in fact be the first individual placing reliance on it?
Nate
I tend to agree with you.
In my neck of the woods we often come across what is called a CBM, or cutting boundary monument that 2 or more owners agreed to use as a mark for limits of timber cutting. Very typical and the understanding was that they didn't want to spend the cost of a survey, so they would harvest up to the approximate mark.
That is, until a proper survey was performed. At such time it is commonly understood that no claims of permanent ownership were based on the CBM.
Same can be said for much of the livestock fencing in this region. Often done without a survey and with no claim of permanent ownership.
These I have verified to be the case many times by discussions with the old timer forestor and cattle owner who had early knowledge of these delineations.
I find this can be the case in other ownerships too. Where the owners pulled out a tape and got as close as they could without benefit of a surveyor. They knew they were approximate and knew they were not establishing THE corner, but rather an approximation of CLOSE to where the corner is.
Perhaps this is the case with your spike. Perhaps not.
In my state, we have had a recording law on the books almost as long as statehood. As such, and considering the history of CBM's and similar, it is not unreasonable to reject a monument of unknown origin, other than when it may be best available evidence for perpetuation of an original or where there is support that is part of an unrecorded careful retracement.
Of course, you always have to ask, "can I defend this decision in court?"
I could not even begin to count the number of times I have been working on a boundary survey and had an owner or neighbor tell me something along the lines of "I set that pipe where I remember the corner being when Mr. Doe showed me what I was buying."
Of course Mr. Doe has been long gone and there happens to be a called for monument in the deed and it is 1, 10, or 100 feet away in the location that the deed says it should be.
People put things in the ground all the time. As surveyors, we should be able to accept them for what they often are - a best guess based on a memory of what someone else told a person.
Sometimes that memory may be the best evidence of a line on the ground, sometimes not. However, just because it is metal and near a corner location does not mean that it was established and used with the consent of all affected parties.
Is the state aware that their corner is marked by this object? I would bet they are not. So how would they have acquiesced to the location? Sounds like one of my pet peeves - stealth surveying. Slide in and slam a 'monument' and run. From the original posters description, this thing is just under the ground surface and has no above ground indication of it being there.
If all it takes is a piece of metal set by someone, I will wait for the next time my neighbors are out of town and drive some scrap iron well over the line and cover it up, wait a few years, and then claim much more lake frontage than I have by deed.
If you decide to reject or accept it, I would not second guess you on a message board. You are in the thick of it and have a better feel for the situation. The above are just some thoughts based on my location.
Footsteps...
> "I would not accept it even if it was within 0.00000 feet of where I was looking. We don't know what it is, how it got there, who put it there or why it was placed."
>
> You might want to rethink that statement. The second sentence is the reason it can't be rejected...
Thank you for the timber spike image (Brian?)
I will stand by the only reason you have for accepting it is that it measures close.
Could be a point set to search for an original if 16ths were set in the past, could be a temporary point on an unfinished survey, could have been set as a one or two or ten foot offset to the corner, could be a traverse point, could be an accessory to an old wood or rock corner that was not currently found, could have been set fraudulently to make sure the oil well/gold mine is on a particular person's property...... could have been set to stake a goat.;-)
clearcut
Of course, you always have to ask, "can I defend this decision in court?"
Wow, is that ever true!!
How many surveyors would be willing to testify in a court of law that his/her measurements were the only evidence used in establishing a corner and a nearby monument was ignored?
HUH?
Keith
Keith...
😉 Please not e the "sarcasm" font. 🙂
Scott
Sorry, missed the sarcasm note.
Keith
