> Just post those quotes from a survey textbook that supports your conclusions and then I will quit.
Is Skelton Boundaries and Adjacent Properties textbook enough?
Section 210 (A) Rule Where there is a dispute of boundaries in two conveyances from the same grantor, the calls of the senior grant must control, and no language contained in the junior grant can in case of conflict extend or change the lines of the elder grant, and it has been ruled that where the first sale by the grantee calls for a specified area, the quantity so set forth must be satisfied by preference and priority over all grants.
How about Boudary Control and Legal Principles?
Section 4.12 Order of Importance...
Order of importance of conflicting elements that determine land location
A. Rights of possession (unwritten conveyance)
B. Senior right (in the event of an overlap)
C. Written intentions of Parties
1. Call for a survey
2. Call for monuments
...
Note that senior rights are higher than monuments!
I could find more but I suspect that if you do not take the Supreme Court as authoritative you will not accept Skelton and Brown.
Actually I suspect you are looking for an axiom that says always do this or that. You will never find anything authoritative in boundary law that says always anything. Cases have to be decided on the merits and the facts. The facts change and the principle applied changes to meed the facts. Sure sometimes a senior line may bend due to junior grants under certain narrowly defined conditions but the general rule is that a senior grant controls the junior grant. You cannot sell what you do no own.
The problem with these arguments is that you are looking for a black and white unvarying rule that does not exists. That is why you generally retorts with a "So then monuments mean nothing" type statement. It is not always one way or the other. It depends upon the facts of the individual situation.
Peter Lazio
BLM Public Land Surveying Casebook
>If there is long standing occupation based on the Jr. survey, then the line would bend by A&R, but, of course, the line would bend by A&R, whether or not there was a Jr. survey.
Just as a point of curiosity, how would you expect to prove that the State had acquiesced in and recognized the encroaching corners placed by the junior survey that subdivided the land along the State highway into lots?
> However, As they are several hundred feet from the corner in question, I think that 0.14' is not too bad. Kent did make me think by asking, "what if it was 0.5' into the R/W, or 1', or 5'?" OK. But what if it was 0.1' or 0.07'? It goes both ways. Would you go all the way down to the DIN spec.s of your instrument before you accepted the old iron? I think that it was set pretty damn good for it's age.
Well, the general principle applies in any case. The question of whether a monument is close enough to be used as the corner for all practical purposes is more one of construction tolerances and the nature of land use, taking into account likely changes over some period of time into the future.
> Another thing to consider is when the LS set the iron 50 years ago, did he have more evidence available to him than Carl has now? Were there more R/W mon.s closer to the subject property that have disappeared over the years?
That is, of course, a possibility, but if it can't be proven, to simply assume that it was there wouldn't be any proof at all. I can think of one case where a private surveyor surveyed a boundary along a state highway that was in the process of being acquired by the State and tied the original centerline of the right-of-way as it existed before construction. His records exist as do enough of his monuments to show that the right-of-way as subsequently monumented by the State didn't follow the centerline defining the strip of land actually conveyed as well as the private surveyor's marks did. That is evidently not the case in the situation Carl described.
> Or is there any ground creep? Is the terrain sloped? Would you accept a little ground movement before you re-monumented?
Well, it boils down to legal principles and showing one's client where the boundary actually is without taking shortcuts just because it may be momentarily convenient. I assume that had the later surveyor marked the lot corners 1.14 ft. into the state highway that not very many surveyors would fail to set new markers at the intersection of the side lot lines and the line of the state highway.
BLM 2009 Manual, sec. 7-30
Anybody want to explain sec. 7-30 of the BLM Manual to us?
Keith
Say that again?
> . . .establishes the legal authority for the use of junior corners to reestablish a senior line. . .
Actually, what the US Supreme Court said in Clement v. Packer was:
> We understand this to mean that when the location of a survey is or can be ascertained and determined by its own marks upon the ground -- its own calls and courses and distances -- it cannot be changed or controlled or enlarged or diminished by the marks or lines of an adjoining junior survey; but when, from the disappearance of these original landmarks, caused by time and other agencies, from the senior survey, the location of a particular line, or the identity of a corner, is left in uncertainty or becomes the subject of controversy, then the original and well established marks found upon a latter survey made by the same surveyor about the same time and adjoining the one in dispute are regarded as legitimate evidence -- not to contest or control, but to elucidate, throw light upon, and thus aid the jury in discovering, the exact location of the older survey.
BLM 2009 Manual, sec. 7-23
Maybe we should start with the BLM 2009 Manual, sec. 7-23.
Keith
Manual, sec. 7-23 irrelevant.... sorry
When you were at HQ how many STATE AUTHORITY surveys did you ,personally,conduct on the ground? In the 20 years at HQ how many surveys of PRIVATE Lands did you approve and sign for?
In the 20 years at HQ how many Federal authority surveys did you,personally,conduct?
How many surveys have YOU EVER, personally, conducted where you overturned Bona fide rights?
Did you accept every monument,set by federal authority, that you ever found?
If you did not accept every monument so set, why not?
Did you accept every monument,set under state authority, that you ever found?
If not,why not?
What about no authority monuments, those set by land owners?
Did you accept every no authority monument that you found?
If not why not?
No doubt your extentsive experience at HQ is invaluable, but it may not very useful when it comes to the determination of PRIVATE LAND BOUNDARIES!
The manual IS GENERALLY NOT APPLICABLE TO PRIVATE LANDS. IF THE SUBIDIVSION WAS CREATED UNDER STATE AUTHORITY THEN THE MANUAL IS IRRELEVANT FOR SUBDIVISIONS NOT CREATED UNDER FEDERAL RULES......A monument along a road right of way would be outside the realm of the BLM MANUAL.
BLM Public Land Surveying Casebook
Knowledge gained from "textbooks" = 0.05%
Knowledge gained from real-world / everyday surveying = 99.5%
Does anyone else spend their days reading textbooks? I don't.
I hope you live long enough to learn all that is necessary from your own experiences.
Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself. " — Eleanor Roosevelt
Gunter C.
Bingo.
BLM Public Land Surveying Casebook
Now that is funny. That case is referred to in the BLM Public Lands Surveying Casebook, Chapter C under Junior-Senior Surveys and Corners. That's close enough to a text book for me.
Maybe it's too old of a text book for some to consider....
lol!
> Is Skelton Boundaries and Adjacent Properties textbook enough?
Excellent cite, Peter.
Manual, sec. 7-23 irrelevant.... sorry
The manual IS GENERALLY NOT APPLICABLE TO PRIVATE LANDS. IF THE SUBIDIVSION WAS CREATED UNDER STATE AUTHORITY THEN THE MANUAL IS IRRELEVANT FOR SUBDIVISIONS NOT CREATED UNDER FEDERAL RULES......A monument along a road right of way would be outside the realm of the BLM MANUAL.
If state statutes mention the Manual of Instructions when boundary surveying in your state than the Manual is applicable.
The Manual is more powerful then the Quran
> > Just post those quotes from a survey textbook that supports your conclusions and then I will quit.
>
> Is Skelton Boundaries and Adjacent Properties textbook enough?
>
> Section 210 (A) Rule Where there is a dispute of boundaries in two conveyances from the same grantor, the calls of the senior grant must control, and no language contained in the junior grant can in case of conflict extend or change the lines of the elder grant, and it has been ruled that where the first sale by the grantee calls for a specified area, the quantity so set forth must be satisfied by preference and priority over all grants.
>
>
Not only did Mr. Lazio cite a textbook, that textbook cites two cases to support its claim.....the part that states "no language contained in the junior grant can in case of conflict extend or change the lines of the elder grant," cites Bryant v. Terry, 189 KY. 489, 225 s. w. 242.
the second part cites State v. Stutzner, 153 LA. 233, 95 sO. 701
I sort of agree with both sides on this. I am probably not going to set a monument 0.14 in the case described before....but will probably use the bearings and distances between the nearest R/W monuments to control my report. However, if I am going to use local control to reestablish some senior corners, I would probably utilize the existing pipe monument if I found it to be of value under the very theory that it was probably set before some of the senior monumentation got destroyed.
So Keith, why don't you cite a case that supports your theory that a junior property corner controls a senior right-of-way line.
Manual, sec. 7-23 irrelevant.... sorry
Research the road, you would be surprised of how Federal funds and guidelines are used to build roads across America.
Say that again?
Why did you ignore this part " "in the event of extensive obliteration or loss of the senior corners" ", it puts an entirely different spin on things.
Ooooooo.....can we schedule a Manual burning and draw world-wide attention to land surveying?
I think we all know that we can find
the words we are looking for in certain local court decisions and run with them.
I simply don't get the argument that ROW lines are ONLY at the exact measured distance and not at the monuments that a surveyor established for the line.
And I have yet to see any textbook cases or court cases that support that exact issue.
Remember this entire argument is coming from the fact that a monument that was set in the 50's was found to be off a line 0.14 feet between corner monuments that were 300 and 800 feet away.
I don't have a case that states my view and if you think there is going to be a case that involves itself with 0.14 feet; keep looking.
Keith
plazio
Thanks for your posting some verbiage to support your arguments.
I would think that it would be obvious that I am not looking for a black and white answer to all situations as that would be as naive as some that believe the ROW line or a senior line never bends. (Or any surveyed line) I believe you have it backwards in fact, i. e., some here will not accept ANY evidence of the line if it is not exactly on the line between senior corners. I will accept corner monuments in some or maybe most instances that was described in the example here with the monument off by 0.14 feet.
I am saying, that is not how it is in real life and remember we are arguing from the example of a pin cushion corner monument that was set 0.14 feet away from that exact line in the 50's. That is where I am coming from and that argument is ludicrous.
And then of course there are some posters here that have no positive statements and only try to insult me. And they are seen for what they are.
Keith
This is a big stretch
to claim that a monument set in the 50's and is off some imaginary line between corners 300 and 800 feet away.......is a mistake?
Only in the mind of an absolute expert measurer.
Keith
Maybe a personal biased opinion
but I will take the advice of the BLM Manual over some written opinions.
Even Kent's opinion!
Keith
