?ÿIn 1873 County Surveyor subdivided sixteenth section into two lots. Lot 2 west of Lot 1. The line between the lots was offset 305 ft. from the west section line. He did not mention setting monuments and none have ever been found but it was a common practice to set stones without mentioning. In the early 1900's there were conveyances made using the Lot 1 and Lot 2 descriptions. In 1975 the owner of Lot 1 had a survey made of lot 1 along with some other land not included in this sixteenth. The surveyor created a metes and bounds description and survey plat that does not mention Lot 1 or the adjoining Lot 2 at all. The survey monumented a line following occupation that meanders down through a creek bottom. That line is the solid line on the sketch. The dashed line is offset 305 feet from section line. The largest departure from the line is about 40 feet. The 1975 description was used subsequently to covey that property. The owner of lot 2 held a deed to Lot 2 until 1992 at which time they had a survey made that used the 1975 monuments. That description and survey made no reference to Lot 2 and created a metes and bounds description referenced to the 1975 courses and distances. When that owner conveyed their entire property the conveyance deed used the survey description. Everyone seems to be at peace with acting as though Lots 1 and 2 never existed. The only way I discovered this is because there is a 1 acre cemetery cut out of the middle of lot 1 that is rereferred to as lot 1 of lot 1. So Lot 1 of lot 1 exists in the current record but lot 1 and lot 2 don't. I don't have any questions but just when you think you've seen it all.... By the way, my survey narrative was 3 recorded pages and my plat 1. When I presented it to the recorder she said "oh my". It was a record a boundary agreement the way I see it even though it wasn't called that. The title people apparently never had a concern.?ÿ