The question for the PLS quiz required calculating the NW closing corner of Section 5.
I take the stance that it needs to be prorated and I have some time this morning to explain more in depth; beyond that's the way we always do it.?ÿ
My question asking if the notes have different info than the plat which holds the notes or the plat wasn't answered, but as many know the answer is the plat holds over the notes. That seems wrong because it's easy to infer the draftsman made a mistake transposing numbers or it's a typo in the face of the plat. For example if the notes show 79.96 chains along the south line of Section 5 and the plat shows 79.86 chains do you use the plat or the notes to prorate in the SE section corner. The plat is what is used. One reason and probably the main reason is that the plat is the document used to issue the patents for land. The patentee has every expectation to have the information on the face of the plat honored.?ÿ
Closing corners are vexing. They weren't even intended to be placed on the line, only "close". So the tie to the nearest corner starts out as a hypotenuse and not a tie along the line. So the distance should be shorter than the tie. They didn't measure to the next corner so you have the closing corner single tied. Can you use the remaining distance along the line to prorate? The answer is yes, you can.?ÿ
The distance shown on the plat is 14.70 chains, the record along that line is 40 chains, leaving 25.30 to the corner to the west. I prorated in using those distances to get my location,,,,,,,as I always do in these situations.
This seems wrong because of what we know about standard lines being long, the ties being tricky as well.
But that's not the issue. The issue is the plat and what's on the face of it. It's the law also. The law states that these dimensions and information will be held and respected. There really isn't a choice,,,,,,,,,and it makes it simpler.
You must give up the conjectures, the assumptions, the speculations and protect the plat. By protecting the plat as the law requires you protect the bona fida rights of the land owners. The 25.30 dimension to be used to prorate is protected by law. It makes the decision easier for the retracing surveyor.?ÿ
Is what I've related above correct??ÿ
Let us take a real world look.
I know it is since this isn't my first rodeo, but if you ever have questions about these issues there is a very good resource.?ÿ
The great retracement surveys of the Powder River basin can help guide you about what to do.?ÿ
You may have issues with the BLM and their practice, but they know their stuff and I will show a couple of closing corner examples here:
This is the original plat for Section 3; T52N, R70W; closing on the Thirteenth Standard Parallel 6th PM:
It doesn't take much calculation to see that the corners are prorated in, using the 14.99, 15.01 chains subtracting them from 40 record chains and using those numbers to prorate against measured.?ÿ
Doing this protects land owners on either side of the lines.
The notes are available and I suggest if there are ever questions about the correct procedure, Campbell County Wyoming is the place to research. All 5000 square miles have been resurveyed I think. If there are still some original surveys I haven't been there. It's a few clicks to get to the web site for the BLM in Wyoming and all plats and notes are there. Be sure to use internet explorer, some other web search engines don't seem to work very well with the site.?ÿ
You must be in the area where it's only 24 miles between Standard Parallels.?ÿ Ours are 30 miles apart.?ÿ Thus you encounter them 50 percent more frequently than we do.
Two of my retracements were in sections like the ones you described in the prior thread. a few hundred miles north of home I was surveying in the north tier of sections in a township.
Most corners had original monuments or old fence corners and intersections, many times both. The north tier of sections are 500' longer than the plats and notes describe. The W1/4's of Sections 1-3 were recovered 2640' more or less north of the SW corners of the sections. The W1/4 of 4 was not found. Looking 2640 north of the SW corner and 2640 south of the NW corner and everywhere in-between, nothing was recovered. Soooooo,,,,,as a last resort I indexed the found distances and set the W1/4 2640 north, more or less, of the SW corner.?ÿ
I didn't like it but a prorate would have been wrong for sure.?ÿ
A decade later a few miles from home I'm surveying in a township that has the same 500' excess along the north tier of sections. Everything including occupation shows the W1/4's were set 2640 from the SW corners. I'm needing the W1/4 of Section 5 and 3960 north of the SW corner is a property fence corner indicating that the same pattern holds for section 5 since that is the N1/6 which would be the deeded property corner. Well, I found the monument, it is 2640 south of the NW corner. Pretty as can be, a mound of stone with a set stone and a topo call to a stream that fits as close as you can imagine. That monument is only about 800 feet south of the property corner which puts both properties in a real bind.?ÿ
You have to be careful breaking the plat.?ÿ
Neither of the described townships were closing on a standard line.?ÿ
The 'stubbing in' of quarter corners had to be a great time saver for the original surveyors.?ÿ Profitable, too.?ÿ In some parts of the country where the local residents were downright hostile, this probably saved some lives.
The trick is to obtain enough local knowledge that you somewhat know what to expect in advance.?ÿ This is the frailty associated with working in areas far from home.?ÿ Assuming what is on the PLAT is gospel can create huge problems in areas where the accuracy of the plat is poor.
The question for the PLS quiz required calculating the NW closing corner of Section 5.
I take the stance that it needs to be prorated and I have some time this morning to explain more in depth; beyond that's the way we always do it.?ÿ
My question asking if the notes have different info than the plat which holds the notes or the plat wasn't answered, but as many know the answer is the plat holds over the notes. That seems wrong because it's easy to infer the draftsman made a mistake transposing numbers or it's a typo in the face of the plat. For example if the notes show 79.96 chains along the south line of Section 5 and the plat shows 79.86 chains do you use the plat or the notes to prorate in the SE section corner. The plat is what is used. One reason and probably the main reason is that the plat is the document used to issue the patents for land. The patentee has every expectation to have the information on the face of the plat honored.?ÿ
Closing corners are vexing. They weren't even intended to be placed on the line, only "close". So the tie to the nearest corner starts out as a hypotenuse and not a tie along the line. So the distance should be shorter than the tie. They didn't measure to the next corner so you have the closing corner single tied. Can you use the remaining distance along the line to prorate? The answer is yes, you can.?ÿ
The distance shown on the plat is 14.70 chains, the record along that line is 40 chains, leaving 25.30 to the corner to the west. I prorated in using those distances to get my location,,,,,,,as I always do in these situations.
This seems wrong because of what we know about standard lines being long, the ties being tricky as well.
But that's not the issue. The issue is the plat and what's on the face of it. It's the law also. The law states that these dimensions and information will be held and respected. There really isn't a choice,,,,,,,,,and it makes it simpler.
You must give up the conjectures, the assumptions, the speculations and protect the plat. By protecting the plat as the law requires you protect the bona fida rights of the land owners. The 25.30 dimension to be used to prorate is protected by law. It makes the decision easier for the retracing surveyor.?ÿ
Is what I've related above correct??ÿ
Let us take a real world look.
I know it is since this isn't my first rodeo, but if you ever have questions about these issues there is a very good resource.?ÿ
The great retracement surveys of the Powder River basin can help guide you about what to do.?ÿ
You may have issues with the BLM and their practice, but they know their stuff and I will show a couple of closing corner examples here:
This is the original plat for Section 3; T52N, R70W; closing on the Thirteenth Standard Parallel 6th PM:
It doesn't take much calculation to see that the corners are prorated in, using the 14.99, 15.01 chains subtracting them from 40 record chains and using those numbers to prorate against measured.?ÿ
Doing this protects land owners on either side of the lines.
The notes are available and I suggest if there are ever questions about the correct procedure, Campbell County Wyoming is the place to research. All 5000 square miles have been resurveyed I think. If there are still some original surveys I haven't been there. It's a few clicks to get to the web site for the BLM in Wyoming and all plats and notes are there. Be sure to use internet explorer, some other web search engines don't seem to work very well with the site.?ÿ
?ÿ
You are taking "protect the plat" a step or two too far. The first duty of a resurveyor is to place any lost corners where they most likely were originally set. Everything else is secondary. The idea of protecting the plat comes from how we calculate corners that were not originally set. We don't put those corners where they should be in a perfect section, but follow the plat that the patent we are concerned with is based.
Courts have consistently held that the notes are as much a part of the original patent as the plat. So protecting the plat means to protect the notes. Where there is a discrepancy between the two we need to put any lost corners in there most likely position. Because the plats were drawn by draftsman based on the notes written by the field surveyor the general assumption is that the notes are more likely correct.
As far as calculating the closing corner in the PLSS quiz, I thought the closing corner was found??ÿ The procedures for calculating the true corner position has been hashed and doesn't involve proportions (See the manual).
I'm not saying you protect the plat in every situation, however, for this problem this is how it should be done. If you will read my posts you will see where I didn't.
But the law is clear, in this instance the plat needs to be respected to protect the bona fide rights of the landowners, they each get the amount the plat shows.
If you wish to find a situation where the notes hold over the plat you sure can, there are exceptions to every rule.?ÿ
Be specific to this problem, show where the other solutions are the correct one.?ÿ
This is a lost corner, not one with evidence of any kind to replace it.
Notes need to hold over the plat unless you have positive proof that the plat was correct and the notes wrong. If you read any version of the manual you will see that the plats are drawn from the notes. The most likely source of an error is obvious. The number of court cases that hold that the patent includes the plats and the notes is huge.
Your "proration" technique appears to be a brand new invention. Proportioning in the manual and other sources, like Brown, and in the precedent setting courts is based on proportioning a measured line. That's why we use the closing corner to proprrion points on the closing line, not the true corner position.
?ÿI don't see the logic is proportioning a line that was never measured. The first step in proportioning is to isolate any errors that you can locate. Why would you proportion an error in the closing survey across a line that was only measured by the senior survey??ÿ
The north quarter corner of such a section is forty chains west of the northeast corner of the section as measured by the party setting the northeast corner and then measuring the direction and distance to the section corner set by the party laying out the Standard Parallel.?ÿ This may or may not be close to a midpoint between the two corners set by the following surveyor. Right??ÿ Surveys in the 1850's set the north and south quarter corners 40 chains west of and parallel with the east section line, for example.
I agree, different rules for that corner happen depending on the date of the original surveys. I prorated it and it can be argued that it should be done differently. I don't know the era of the original.?ÿ
Of course I did . I posted a BLM resurvey for two closing?ÿ corners replacing two lost cornes almost to the exact chains as the problem. I'm explaining that the plat has authoeity based on statute. The law surveyors in the PLSS should be very familar with.?ÿ
You say I and the BLM are wrong treating a lost closing corner this way. Show your work!!!
And solve the problem, I posted my worksheet for it.
sure the 1805 statute that creates the PLSS; to summarize:
"The original surveys are without error, in that the distances and courses returned in the field notes and noted on the plat are the "true distances"." Robillard and Wilson
Also corners can't me moved to conform with the plat or notes.?ÿ
The center 1/4 is to be located by connecting the 1/4 corners with straight lines.?ÿ
Of course the statute itself can be viewed easily.?ÿ
So what does it mean?
My comment about plat holding over notes with exceptions to that general rule is intended to explain why plats even with minimal information contained on them such as the closing corner that has only one tie can be used to prorate from. Basically plats have authority in the disposal of lands. My examples confirm the procedure has at least some authority from the BLM practice of prorating in a closing corner without ties both directions.?ÿ?ÿ
No doubt evidence might be uncovered to place the corner in question and would change the location from a prorate, but this is a question about a lost corner.?ÿ
Court cases of notes vs. plats can be found to go both ways. That can't be surprising to anyone.
@mightymoe The land ordinance (and well settled case law) do not place the plat above the notes. In the case of errors in the record, you place the error where the evidence tells you it occured. This is a question of fact, not law. That does not mean your location is incorrect, but it does mean your statutory underpinnings do not exist. Elevating plat over notes (or notes over plat) absent evidence is a recipe for rejection by the courts...
