Carl Zeiss
And I would expect that you do a retracement survey of the previously established subdivision lines, just like section lines or any other previously surveyed line.
Keith
Keith
Bingo!
You got it.
In other words
Does anybody have a court case that states that the aliquot part corners are not the same as the property corners?
> Make your argument on the bogus premise of double corners.
Keith,
You asked for a court case...I provided one that I thought met the bill. I am not trying to argue for or against, just trying to provide what you asked for.
In the Titus case you will note the decision was to hold the 'original' survey even though it was put back together using measurement instead of monument. The subsequent surveys, holding what they thought were the original monuments, were ignored...being mere 5/8" rebar. Note that this decision was made PRIOR to considering adverse possession (that would have turned the subsequent monuments into PROPERTY CORNERS). If the owners had acted upon their surveys and enclosed their property, etc. and met the possession requirements, in my opinion, the Court may have granted ownership. Then you would have aliquot part corners not the same as the property corners.
Bogus premise of double corners...
How about a case that not only has 'double' section corners but:
The circuit court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties and their predecessors had occupied their respective tracts based on their mistaken belief that the tall four-inch pipe corner was their common corner. Only after recent surveys revealed the mistake did Mr. Thurlkill object to the location of the boundary line. Accordingly, the circuit court quieted title in the Woods to the disputed property under the theory of boundary by acquiescence. After a de novo review of all the evidence in this case—including the 1845 government plat, the surveys, and the testimony of the parties and various neighbors—we cannot say that the circuit judge clearly erred in this finding, and we affirm the court's judgment.
and used the Standard Corner instead of the Closing Corner...thus making a PROPERTY CORNER out of the WRONG aliquot corner.
Thurlkill v Wood
DDSM
Dan
Thanks for your post and not sure if it proves the case of double corners or not, but I will take a look at it.
"If the owners had acted upon their surveys and enclosed their property, etc. and met the possession requirements, in my opinion, the Court may have granted ownership. Then you would have aliquot part corners not the same as the property corners." Yes, an opinion.
Keith
Dan
The Thurlkill case has nothing to do with aliquot part lines/corners. The line in question was the west boundary of section 2, which the landowners mistaken believed that the std corner of 34 & 35 was the corner between sections 3 and 2, where in reality the corner of 3 & 2 (a closing corner) was 164 feet west of the std corner.
"The owner of the north tract in Township 18 South is Guy Webb, who marked his corner with a tall four-inch pipe and ran his fences north, west, and east from that corner. Unaware of the offset and in the mistaken belief that Mr. Webb's southwest corner was also a common corner among these parties—that is, Mr. Thurlkill's northwest corner and the Woods' northeast corner—the Woods and their predecessors ran their fence south from that tall pipe, or offset corner. Thus, the fence was not on the record boundary line but rather 164.12 feet east of the record boundary line. But neither of the parties in this case was aware of the 164-foot offset long established by the government plat."
Thurlkill wanted to hold to the true west bndry of section 2, and Wood wanted to hold to the 60 plus yr old fence under the doctrines of adverse posession and boundary by acquiescence. The court upheld the acquiescence doctrine.
Again this case has nothing to do with aliquot lines/corners as was the intent of this thread.
Brian
> Again this case has nothing to do with aliquot lines/corners as was the intent of this thread.
Does anybody have a court case that states that the aliquot part corners are not the same as the property corners?
What is the intent of this thread? To provide a Court decision that a mathematical solution that follows the BLM manual creates the 'true' aliquot corner and that the existing monument is called a Property Corner?
And Adverse Possession nor acquiesence doesn't count?
DDSM
Brian
Dan, I appreciate your finding this case as it does contain interesting information, but again, the Thurlkill case involved a SECTION LINE, not an aliquot line/corner. Nobody in the case disputed the location of the SECTION LINE, they (the Woods) were claiming to the fence via acquiescence, not an alleged improper establishment or retracement of the section line. The location of the SECTION line was not calling into question, wherein Dykes, the location of the C1/4 was called into question. Apples vs Oranges.
What Keith is looking for is a case similar to Dykes, wherein the court held, like Brown asserts, that a monument near the C1/4 (or any other interior 16th) was declared a "property corner", not the aliquot corner as it was not proven to be established by proper procedures and was not within some specified "tolerance" of precision of measurement.
Brian
Apples vs Oranges. :beer: I know...I was pulling Keith's leg about his double corner crack.
>
> What Keith is looking for is a case similar to Dykes, wherein the court held, like Brown asserts, that a monument near the C1/4 (or any other interior 16th) was declared a "property corner", not the aliquot corner as it was not proven to be established by proper procedures and was not within some specified "tolerance" of precision of measurement.
Thanks for the clarification, Brian.
I can find two cases in Arkansas where monuments set using "non" proper BLM procedures were found to be the 'true' aliquot corner but none, as yet, showing what Keith is looking for.
I have seen, however, many plats that show dashed lines at the technical 'breakdown' location and either a found monument/usage line to be 'off' or labeled the found monument as a Property Corner. Many of these 'surveys' lead to cases that then use adverse possession or acquiesence to find the monument/usage line to be the 'boundary'.
DDSM
Dan
'I have seen, however, many plats that show dashed lines at the technical 'breakdown' location and either a found monument/usage line to be 'off' or labeled the found monument as a Property Corner. Many of these 'surveys' lead to cases that then use adverse possession or acquiesence to find the monument/usage line to be the 'boundary'."
That is a prime example of the bogus theory that some actually believe in!!
Keith
Dan
I can find two cases in Arkansas where monuments set using "non" proper BLM procedures were found to be the 'true' aliquot corner...
Can you post these, or provide a cite? I'd like to read them and sdd them to my "collection".
Thanks,
Keith
> That is a prime example of the bogus theory that some actually believe in!!
>
> Keith
The problem is that only the 'technical' surveyor testifies. He explains the BLM methods and how he used RTK (or fancy plumb bobs) to measure. How his computer can do single and double proportion between the monuments he happened upon and how he computed the 'technical' or 'true' breakdown.
The other folks' lawyer does not hire a surveyor who can explain the history and pedigree of the found monuments/use lines and bases the case on adverse possession or acquiesence. The Court never has the chance to decide that the existing, historical, monument is really the aliquot corner. That is why so few cases...at least in Arkansas...in my opinion...will show a 'double corner' situation.
That is why I keep bringing up Wallace v. Fordyce Lumber Company
"The Manual is for the guidance of the employees of the Bureau of Land Management. To all others this surveying practice should be regarded as advisory, with no attempt to interpret State law respecting the survey of private property."
In an effort to find evidence of government corners it should be borne in mind that more than thirteen decades and a lustrum have passed since the government survey was made and the corners established and the field notes made and filed. In the years that have passed between those events, armies have moved and a war has been fought in our section and the ravages of time and decay have also taken a toll of monuments which at best could be considered only transitory in a section where an outcropping of rock or other permanent material would be novel indeed.
It is entirely possible that over the generations past people have, as best they could with the crude methods at hand, located corners and lines from government corners that were known. Those corners may now be obliterated and difficult to ascertain but on the strength of those determinations of positions, forests have been leveled, fields have been cleared and tilled, homes, villages and cities have been erected and if there was error in measurement or location of any of these things it has persisted through a long period of time. That error, if error existed, may be reflected in lines of property long distances from the original markings but over the years they have been accepted and the court should weigh well the confusion and mischief that might be wrought by the change of an accepted line.
Before that line which has been accepted through the long years is changed, it should be made to appear that the wrong, the injustice, the inequity of the situation is glaring and the change is appreciable, and the error easily traced to its source.
In some instances judgments and court decrees, as well as accepted usage, go back to corners established by our forebearers on the basis of the best knowledge they had obtainable and we rather think that the logic which brought forth the ancient maxim STARE DECISIS, ET NON QUIETA MOVERE, which has done so much to stabilize the decisions of the courts, might well be applicable as we contemplate the effect of the change of long established lines. In these circumstances we prefer to stand by precedent and not disturb settled points.
DDSM
Brian
Here is one...I will post the other in the morning...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2775151810926754375&q=witkowski+v+white&hl=en&as_sdt=4, 4">Witkowski v. White
DDSM
Brian
"The government plat which is on file in the County Clerk's Office was introduced in evidence discloses that each of the two tracts in question are regular in size and shape and each contains forty acres. Plaintiff's Deed conveyed to him forty acres. The quarter section line between the two forty acre tracts is a straight line East and West across the entire section."
Q. So the original government survey reflects that the north half of Section 26 is 2767.38 feet, which is longer?
A. Yes. Before I conduct a survey for anyone, I go to the original government survey to determine whether it is large or small, and if it is short I have to convert proportionately each 40 acre tract. If it is standard, then I refer to this to determine my survey.
McKinley v. Hilliard
"Otherwise the probative value of Mr. Keefe's testimony is somewhat destroyed by his admission that his plumb bob method of chaining was of such accuracy that he found overages on every measurement made. The question arises as to why he found no overage on the south line across section 25."
DDSM
