One of the thorns in our side is a Section that has been thoroughly wrecked by Land Surveyors...in a lawsuit the prevailing party had two experts (Trial 1, expert 1; Reversed on appeal; Trial 2, expert 2) which don't precisely agree with each other (only by 17' which in that Section isn't much). The issue is over the north-south centerline of Section which the 1876 Deputy skewed 18?ø to the northwest on a completion survey. The private owner of the northwest quarter wanted a more cardinal north-south centerline because it benefited him by 500' on the south and 900' on the north; he found two hired guns who happily opined that what he wanted was correct albeit they disagree with themselves by 17'. The effect of their opinionating was it moved the east-west centerline north on the order of 50' and the north section line south 20' but I guess Matt Thompson didn't care too much about that, he wanted that big trapezoid on his east (timber).
So new questions come up, mostly confusion, where are the boundaries really and someone found one of the many monuments out there and they are wondering why the blazed line doesn't go to that monument.
The property owners should hang NO SURVEYORS signs in some of these sections.
"Nothing is better understood than that few of our early plats will stand the test of a careful and accurate survey without disclosing errors. This is as true of the government surveys as of any others, and if all the lines were now subject to correction on new surveys, the confusion of lines and titles that would follow would cause consternation in many communities. Indeed the mischiefs that must follow would be simply incalculable, and the visitation of the surveyor might well be set down as a great public calamity." -Justice Thomas M. Cooley writing in Diehl v. Zanger, 39 Mich. 601, 605 (1878).
"The effect of their opinionating was it moved the east-west centerline north on the order of 50' and the north section line south 20' ..."
I'm not sure that I would agree that anyone other than the ILBA can actually "move" a Section or center of Section line. Other courts could mandate that "ownership" lines might move, but I think the Section lines are pretty much inviolate without Federal action...
Where I work, confusion of lines and title is the norm. Everybody has joined in for 150 years, landowners, title companies, and surveyors.
Jim in AZ, post: 452600, member: 249 wrote: "The effect of their opinionating was it moved the east-west centerline north on the order of 50' and the north section line south 20' ..."
I'm not sure that I would agree that anyone other than the ILBA can actually "move" a Section or center of Section line. Other courts could mandate that "ownership" lines might move, but I think the Section lines are pretty much inviolate without Federal action...
True, in theory an original line can't be moved but in practice if Surveyor A says I found the 2 section corners and 1 quarter section corner in the middle (which look to me like the real originals) and the more convincing hired gun expert says your quarter corner and northeast section corner aren't the originals, they are actually over here 900' east (which just happens to benefit my client by hundreds of feet) and the Superior Court Judge accepts the hired guns opinion then lines have been moved although in theory they haven't, the Judge simply ruled that their hired gun expert had the true original corners and our expert did not, those monuments (which I believe are really the originals) are meaningless (the Judge said he thought the Lumber Company faked it all up in the 1880s retracement work).
Everyone accepts the northwest corner of the section. The 1876 Deputy managed to get the north quarter section corner and the northeast section corner on about the correct latitude but 900 feet too far west, the rest of the section is reasonably normal size. The Lumber Company surveyor in the 1880s ran north 40 chains from a stake at the nominal regular center of section and did not find the quarter section corner. So he started running east until he crossed the first deep gulch called for in the notes, then he continued east through the second deep gulch in the notes, the two gulches are about the distance apart called for in the notes, then he continues east and at the distance called he found the northeast section corner about 900' short of where he expected to find it. Then he turned around and went west and at about the right distance from the two gulches he found the north quarter section corner post. He could've faked the stakes but the gulches? I don't think so, that sounds bogus to me. I think he found the originals and the Benson Syndicate deputy (James Woods) was an idiot and actually did manage to get those two corners 900' too far west but they are the originals.
So what went wrong here? Was the correct survey poorly portrayed?
Yup, it seems the judge did some land surveying here.
Interesting case Dave. Obviously each one is different. I was involved in a case where a Superior Court Judge made a similar ruling regarding Section lines approx. 20 years earlier. The new Superior Court judged ruled that the first decision applied only to the parcels involved in the first case. He stated that all other surveys needed to be based on the other set of corners. When the Plaintiff's attorney pointed out that this was going to create overlapping parcels he said that they would be adjudicated individually in the future. Seemed like an odd ruling to me, but he was the Judge!
The true, original position is wherever it was originally set. The legal position is where it was legally determined to be whether that is the true original position or not.
I sometimes look at it in terms of other legal determinations. A man could have committed murder of another man - in reality. A court could rule that he is "not guilty". He is not guilty by legal judgment but he is guilty in reality. Court decisions can be as low as who is right by preponderance of the evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt. Legal guilt can be overturned.
There is nothing wrong with you making a judgment as to the true position. As an expert you are licensed to be able to do that. But a judge or jury might make a legal decision that disagrees with your opinion.
Jim in AZ, post: 452600, member: 249 wrote: "The effect of their opinionating was it moved the east-west centerline north on the order of 50' and the north section line south 20' ..."
I'm not sure that I would agree that anyone other than the ILBA can actually "move" a Section or center of Section line. Other courts could mandate that "ownership" lines might move, but I think the Section lines are pretty much inviolate without Federal action...
Jim is mostly right. A section line can only move by official federal action, but that can only be an official BLM survey. The IBLA only has authority to decide on the location of the line, they can not move it, though both IBLA and the federal courts can direct the BLM to move it.
Often the difference between "moving a section line", and "moving the ownership lines" is academic, but sometimes it is not.
The two most important times it matters are:
1. When a non federal court "moves" the line and a federal interest is affected
2. When an owner not a party to a non federal court case is affected by the "move".
