Classic Texas Surveying Problem

In California

In California this might pose a significant question, but really, in Texas, who cares which party retains possession of the snakes and scrub?
It's Sudoku really, isn't it?
An idle time amusement just to exercise the mind, with no real consequence in reality.

Don

Edit:

I apologize, that was poorly written.
The root "real" was seriously overused.
Really

640 - acre sections with conflicting dilemmas.......hmmm.....hey, I can loan you our big land-surveying cookbook 😀

In California

> In California this might pose a significant question, but really, in Texas, who cares which party retains possession of the snakes and scrub?

LOL! Actually, this isn't exactly an academic question. It's a real title dispute with probably about a $400k price tag.

> 640 - acre sections with conflicting dilemmas.......hmmm.....hey, I can loan you our big land-surveying cookbook

My example is properly understood as further evidence of the complexity of metes and bounds land grant systems. You dudes in PLSSia don't know how soft you have it.

Oops, one important clarification:

In the following list, the patent dates apply only to the odd-numbered surveys, not the State surveys. Once located, the even-numbered State surveys were set apart from the public domain, but weren't typically sold until years after the odds were patented.

> Order of Surveys:
> [pre]
> (BLUE)
> Surveys 133 & 134 by virtue of
> Adams, Beaty & Moulton Scrip No. 1323
> Made by J.W. Cummings, Uvalde Co. Surveyor
> Date of survey: 10/15/1875
> Filed in Uvalde Co. Surveyor's Records 11/06/1875
> Filed in GLO 03/18/1876
> Patented 04/17/1878
>
> (GREEN)
> Surveys 135 & 136 by virtue of
> Adams, Beaty & Moulton Scrip No. 1324
> Made by J.W. Cummings, Uvalde District Surveyor
> Date of survey: 12/15/1875
> Filed in Uvalde Co. Surv. Records 01/01/1876
> Filed in GLO 03/29/1876
> Patented 03/14/1895
>
> (ORANGE)
> Surveys 3 & 4 by virtue of
> J.V. Massey Cert. No. 52
> Made by F.M. Maddox, Dep. Surveyor Bexar District
> Date: 03/03/1876
> Filed in Bexar Dist. Surv. Records
> Filed in GLO 04/07/1876
> Patented 07/10/1876
>
> (MAGENTA)
> Surveys 215 & 216 by virtue of
> Beaty, Seale & Forwood Scrip No. 1/470
> Made by J.M. McCormick, Uvalde District Surveyor
> Date of survey: 12/23/1876
> Filed in Uvalde Dist. Surv. Records 01/10/1877
> Filed in GLO 02/19/1878
> - Field notes rejected for not having been returned
> - to GLO within 12 months of date of survey.
> - Duplicate scrip issued for relocation.
> Original location resurveyed by
> J.M. McCormick, Uvalde Co. Deputy Surveyor
> Date of resurvey: 06/04/1879
> Filed in Uvalde Dist. Surv. Records 06/06/1879
> Filed in GLO 06/10/1879
> Patented 03/14/1895
> [/pre]

I'll grant you the fact that you don't know all the complications of a system you have never worked in. 😉

I'll also confess that I was making light jabs at a real situation that is more complicated than I gave it credit for. I"ll step back and let a more serious discussion take place.

Here's a clue from a letter written in 1895 by the owners of the location of the Adams, Beaty & Moulton scrip known as Survey No. 215 to the newly elected Commissioner of the GLO. They had exchanged letters in the fall of 1894 with his predecessor in office trying to understand why the then Commissioner refused to issue a patent for Survey No. 215. In taking up the matter with the new commissioner, their letter explained that :

"We seek to pattent Survey No. 215 Beaty Seale & Forwood located in this Uvalde County in 1875, the files & locations of which are all straight & regular. The survey that Maj. McGaughey claims in conflict with us is survey No. 3, J.V. Massey, located, pattented & abstracted in Zavalla County, then attached to Bexar District. There never has been any file or record of any kind made in this county (Uvalde) for this last survey, although this (Uvalde) was an organized county long before 1875 ..."

Wow Kent. I didn't know the Chinese made maps and wrote descriptions in Texas. I always wondered why I feel out of place when I get close to the state line. Now I know.

Phillip

Now we just need to intermix some federal, private and state mineral rights. All being portions of simple 640 acre metes and bounds and lousy fault ridden subsequent surveys.:-D

Pablo B-)

Orange.

Sidebar- Are the dates shown 'earned' or 'issue' dates? I can't recall which governs in Texas...

> Sidebar- Are the dates shown 'earned' or 'issue' dates? I can't recall which governs in Texas...

The dates of survey are the dates that the field notes state that the survey was made. The survey constituted the appropriation of the land to the extent that the survey was lawfully made, i.e. under a valid certificate or scrip, by a surveyor authorized by law to do so, and with all of the other requirements of the applicable laws met. The land certificate or scrip conferred only an unlocated right to a specific quantity of land, an inchoate title that had to be perfected by survey and return of field notes in compliance with the law. So, all other things being equal, the date of survey was the date that the land covered by the survey was conditionally withdrawn from the unappropriated public domain.

That means that Survey No. 3, J.V. Massey, was a location junior to Surveys Nos. 133 & 134 and to Surveys Nos. 135 & 136, Adams, Beaty & Moulton.

In that the scrip under which Survey No. 3 was made required it to have been located upon the unappropriated public domain, it was in conflict with the superior claims of the owners of the A,B & M scrip. The patent that was issued on Survey No. 3 should never have been issued.

The other equally serious problem that Survey No. 3 had is that the surveyor who located it, F.M. Maddox, wasn't legally authorized to do so since he was neither the County Surveyor of Uvalde County or one of his deputies. Mr. Maddox had been locating blocks of land scrip in Zavala/Zavalla County which, remaining unorganized, was still attached to Bexar Land District within which Maddox was authorized to survey as a deputy of the Bexar District Surveyor, L.C. Navarro.

In the course of his work, Mr. Maddox apparently didn't realize that he had strayed into Uvalde County when he located Surveys Nos. 3 and 4, which were invalid from the start. The patent that the State issued on Survey No. 3 was issued by mistake upon the theory that Survey No. 3 was in Zavala/Zavalla County as Maddox's field notes stated that it was.

As for the date of filing in the GLO, that is the date that the field notes were received. The date is important because the laws then in force required that the field notes be filed within 12 months of the date of the survey.

The date of patent is the date that the State issued the same, the patent being a formal recognition of the rights of the patentee originally acquired by virtue of the location of the land certificate or scrip in compliance with the law.

Excellent break down. My time in Texas was all field. I regret not learning more before returning to PLSS land. Not enough to move back mind you... :^)

> Orange.

Shouldn't that be burnt orange?