Court cases?

The near complete lack of citations in Dykes v. Arnold pretty much answers your question.

This may be a question of semantics. If the "aliquot part corner" is defined as the point of theoretical intersection and the "property corner" is the location of an accepted monument of that corner then of course the two will always differ to some -hopefully minimal- degree.

Mark

I think that is the real rub; some will claim that ONLY the theoretical C 1/4 at the exact intersection of the center lines, is the legal C 1/4 and any other existing corner monument is simply a property corner and is not identical with the theoretical C 1/4 corner.

And that is the bogus part of this whole discussion and you are exactly right; one might pay attention to the references in the Dykes case on the lack of such documentation.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Keith

It would seem obvious to all that I am attempting to get this entire subject of aliquot part corners versus property corners out in the open, debate it, reference it and see if we can't come to some sort of decision that can be relied on.

But, it takes both sides to present arguments and the other side, so far is being slow to respond!!

The other side, being those who believe in the premise that there are aliquot part corners (the only legal corners) and those property corners that some landowners have as their boundary.

You know my opinion and the case of Dykes v Arnold supports my opinion very well.

The Florida case of Rivers v Lozeau supports the view of some who think that only the government can set the True and Legal interior subdivision corners. That is my opinion of course.

Lets have at it!

Keith

Mark

Keith. Don't BLM surveyors regularly reject monuments set by private surveyors if they beleive BLM proceedures were not followed? I have a friend who worked for the BLM in several states, and tells me the BLM is "black and white" on their policy of remonumenting errant corners, especially when they affect Federal land, either they were set per the manual's instruction, or they were not ...

Try Adams, et al v. U.S., et al; 67 F. Supp. 1479; 1988 U.S.Dist LEXIS 5054: decided May 1988

Richard Schaut

Shepardize both cases?

Keith: in your spare time why don't you shepardize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepar d's_Citation both cases and report back to the bulletin board on your findings. If you have forgotten to do this you can check out http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lwr17.htm or any other site of your choosing to help you.

Since you are retired you probably have more time than most to do this research. That would help the bulleting board folks understand the authority of these cases.

Titus v. Chapman

:beer:

I have asked essentially the same question in a different form. That is, show me the case law that says an uncalled for monument holds over bearing and distance calls.

As for aliquot parts, I would rely on the 1973 Manual (sorry, I don't have the 2009 manual yet), Section 3-109:

"A private survey made for the purpose of marking on the ground the theoretical line, platted but not run by the Government, where executed within the allowable departure from the cardinal course, and relied upon by owner under title passed by the United States in the placing of improvements upon the patented land, will not be disturbed, but will be adopted by the Government as a boundary for closure of the survey of the adjoining public land. Algoma Lumber Co. v. Kruger, 50 L.D. 402 (1923)."

So.... I think that uncalled for monuments intended to mark government aliquot corners have the same dignity as the government corners themselves. I do not think the same of other uncalled for monuments.

Pseudo

Naturally, I can't speak for BLMers, but from my past knowledge, there may have been "black and white" answers among a few surveyors, but most definitely not as a general policy.

From what I know, sec. 6-28 is adhered to as a general rule and obviously some corner monuments are disregarded.

I do understand that some BLM surveyors have made the statement that. ". . .BLM surveyors regularly reject monuments set by private surveyors if they beleive BLM proceedures were not followed?" but, I refuse to believe that is the BLM general policy.

If it is, then sec. 6-28 is being disregarded!

Keith

Shepardize both cases?

If the cases are pertinent to the argument, post the pertinent part!

I have to suppose that if surveyors are relying on a certain court case to support their conclusions, would the citation not be handy?

Keith

Ah, maybe you should give us an opinion on what your cited court case holds, if you believe it to be pertinent to the discussion.

Or do I have to give my opinion on them?

Keith

Keith,
Are you asking for my opinion on the Titus v Chapman case or Richard's opinion on his cited case?

DDSM

Dan

On your case.

Dan

It would seem to me that an opinion of and quotes from a case would be good for all of us?

Really don't want a listing of the synopsis of cases on double corners.

Keith

And....

a court case on double corner monuments because of a surveyor created gap, does not count!!

In other words

Make your argument on the bogus premise of double corners.

Or,

pay attention on how to double angles! 😉

Give us a thumb nail sketch of what it says?

Keith

Here in the PLSS First and Second Meridian Surveys, where:

1. The BLM never existed.
2. The GLO didn't break down the sections.
3. Center 1/4's weren't mentioned in instructions or surveyed or even protracted as "corners" by the GLO.
4. There was no Manual until after all of the land was patented out to private or state ownership.

what cases should we be looking for?

OK, just a trick question from where many of the PLSS surveyors live and work 🙂

The way we do it here is just as you would expect.