I read this case, I haven't a clue what it has to do with Carl's original post below. It looks like in this case the difference was large, in the area of 60 rods, unlike below which is 0.14 feet. I understand Kents position that the case says junior lines should yield to a senior line, but it seems like a stretch to apply it to Carl's situation below. I'm sure I could find a case where the basic premise is that monuments hold. I can then say, "no matter what monuments hold" and Carl should not have set a new corner. The truth is no case law will govern all situations. It can't be applied as a hard and fast rule.
The truth is, case law has NOTHING to do with Carls situation below. The real argument is "how close is close enough", and that is really what the dispute is about.
What really bothers me about all these arguments is how black and white some people make this. It is also a regional thing. In Carl's area, if this is how it is often handled, then he did the right thing. In a different part of the country, it might be handled by using the original pipe. It's the entire 0.04' argument all over again.
David
You are right of course, and the whole point of my arguments is to bring this issue about ROW lines and senior lines never bending as a bogus premise.
And it is a big stretch to go back to a late 1800 case, based on 120 acres, and a survey in the late 1700's.
It is absolutely insane to believe that subsequent evidence has no control over boundary lines.
Common sense usually rules and a pincushion monument set 0.14 feet away from an existing pipe set in the 50's, falls into that category.
Keith
David
Does anyone really believe that their rationale on holding lines straight, comes from this Supreme Court case?
I have yet to read anything on ROW lines are ALWAYS AT RECORD DISTANCE AND NO SUBSEQUENT MONUMENTS CONTROL IT!
Keith
Keith
Okay, I've said it before, but I'll type a bit slower this time.
MOST of the time, where a highway right-of-way is concerned, it IS a senior line in that it was taken and didn't follow parent tract lines. This makes it a senior tract.
Next, MOST of the time, on at least good roads, the Highway department MONUMENTED it's bounds, whether according to hoyle or not, those are ORIGINAL corners.
So, what you effectively have is a senior line with original monuments. Still with me, good.
Next, since time not runneth against the king (Andy Harris provided you with the chapter and verse for Texas), you can't limitate against the state for anything that is for public good, and highways are for public good. I see you're still with me, good.
So, what most highways are as such, a senior tract with original monumentation that can't be limitated against. As such, those highway lines CANNOT bend to ANY junior corner EVER. Also, the text books say you are suppose to locate it again by original monuments or, as a last resort, call distance.
I know you like to argue, but whether it's 0.14' or 15', highways are a different animal and have to be treated in the manner listed above.
In Carl's case, I'd have beat the pipe over to where it was supposed to be and forgot about it. I won't set a corner 0.14' from another.
Common Sense
> Common sense usually rules and a pincushion monument set 0.14 feet away from an existing pipe set in the 50's, falls into that category.
I'm not sure what the law is here. This is essentially the same principle as the Rivers v. Lozeau debate we had just a few days ago and the matter has not yet been proven to my satisfaction.
Common sense, in my opinion, is that this 0.14' just doesn't matter. Three available options are:
- called the monument 0.14' off a straight r/w line,
- called the r/w line straight and applied to virtual hammer to the monument, or
- put a bend in the right of way line.
Choose any one and in 99 out of 100 cases it doesn't make any difference. This isn't microsurgery. I could go with any of these approaches - it would depend on just how the r/w was documented and monumented. The theoretical argument is never going to be solved in the courts because nobody is going to court over 0.14 feet. I think that this pin-cushioning was a mistake, unless there is some certainty that the 0.14' is going to make a difference. It would have been better to let the sleeping dog lie.
There is still time to fix this with a pair of vice grips.
Kris
I can read and understand what you stated......but you didn't come up with that rationale by yourself, so who is teaching this........or where did you get the concept from?
I can read and understand better than you might think and I am having trouble with this whole concept.
And I don't believe that you got your opinions from the 1888 court case.
Let me ask you this? If one of my 1/16 sec. cors. is over the line by a link on the boundary between State and Federal Land, is my monument subject of move to the exact instrument line as would be determined by Kent?
After all, it is encroaching on one or the other?
Keith
Mark
I mostly agree with you and regarding the Rivers v Lozeau case; those with the facts refused to partake in the discussion.
You are right, there is not going to be a court case on 0.14 feet.....and that should tell us something.......and of course when Kent has to bring up a 1888 case, it is a stretch with the facts in that case and the facts in the example here.
I kinda liked the idea of hacksawing part of the pipe to make it all fit right?
Keith
Common Sense
it would depend on just how the r/w was documented and monumented. The theoretical argument is never going to be solved in the courts because nobody is going to court over 0.14 feet. I think that this pin-cushioning was a mistake, unless there is some certainty that the 0.14' is going to make a difference. It would have been better to let the sleeping dog lie.
>
> There is still time to fix this with a pair of vice grips.
> There is still time to fix this with a pair of vice grips.
Oh , I don't think so at this point and I still doubt the veracity of the ROW markers
Keith
We're not talking about a damn 1/16th corner or a link. This WHOLE BS got started from Carl's thread. That's the discussion. The original premise was about highways. I just laid out for you why how and when you do what.
Those premises are well laid out in retracement. It's not a hard stretch to add two and four and get six.
As to the 1/16th corner, I've already answered that on the old board, that exact senario, more than once.
I've argued that you CAN locate the senior from the junior in VERY specific cases, but as a general rule, it's not a good idea. I've done it. Lines run in the timber and corners set in the timber line are the basis for the case that held that senior lines can be bent, but only under certain circumstances.
Kris
Can you answer the question of not?
Keith
Keith
Blow it out of your a$$. You don't like the answers your getting. The question has been asked and answered.
Kris
Thanks for showing your intelligence!
Keith
Next time I follow up on a pin farm I think I will simply note "Corner monument is constructed of an iron pipe and 4 two bit rebar sprouts".
Good idea
And how do you get down there on the ground to give a bearing and distance to that other pin that is 0.14 feet distant?
Keith
