Description says:
?ÿ
The North half of Section 1, T xx North, R yy E, zz Meridian;
Except the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4. aka Government Lot 2;
Except the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4, aka Government Lot 3;
Except Government Lot 1: and
Except that portion described in Docket blah, blah, blah
?ÿ
Why do you suppose they didn't add a fake aliquot description for Government Lot 1 like they did with Government Lots 2 and 3? Do I treat Lot 1 differently than 2 and 3 because of this?
The first surveyor appears not to have known what a lotted Section was, as his map shows he broke the entire Section into aliquot parts.
I believe I must follow the footsteps of the first surveyor...
I believe I must follow the footsteps of the first surveyor...
This would be the GLO Surveyor
Not
The first surveyor appears not to have known what a lotted Section was, as his map shows he broke the entire Section into aliquot parts.
This guy didn't know what he was doing.
You might be able to justify using his work; if everyone was relying on his survey to improve their properties. But that would be a stretch...
?ÿ
Was the section actually divided into lots??ÿ I ask because in my neck of the woods, we have some sections that are subdivided into government lots and are shown on the GLO plat and some that are the section as a whole with only the section corners and quarter corners set.
@dougie?ÿ
"if everyone was relying on his survey to improve their properties."
?ÿ
Everyone isn't, but there are a number of lines of occupation delineated by ancient fences that are based on the incorrect survey...
I don't know - there are no remaining original corner monuments. There are accessories at two section corners that agree with existing monuments, but all quarter corner monuments and accessories are gone.
It is possible the wording change is based on how parcels were deeded away.?ÿ In the deed conveying away Government Lot 1, they correctly named it.?ÿ In the deeds conveying away Government Lots 2 and 3, the scrivner decided to "clarify" (yet muddy the waters) by adding the aliquot descriptions.?ÿ Then, the creator of the current text merely copied precisely the wording from those deeds.
Yes. The lawyers I've dealt with, and my observation from reading a lot more deeds is that around here they are careful to the point of fetish about propagating descriptions verbatim. And if there is a reason important enough to change something, they add "formerly described as".
I would have to give the standard "it depends" answer to your initial question.?ÿ With all excess or deficiency being taken out of or put into the northern and western sections of the township, the answer lies in the government surveyor's notes that should be available through the Government Land Office. Another source that may have a major impact on your decision is the wording in the original patent.
This was a SOP for some attorneys locally, drives me bonkers, however, I've always been able to use the correct locations per Lot descriptions. It's disturbing to see you say there is old occupation based on midpoint splits. That's something you need to consider. It's very possible to accept a non-math solution for an aliquot part without messing up the lotting conventions.?ÿ
My opinion is context matters??in the PLSS the presumption is the NW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 1 is the same as Government Lot 4 but it is rebuttable such as the case where the first surveyor to subdivide the Section used midpoint protraction instead of the proper method for government lots.
one-half is given it??s common meaning.
one-quarter is given its technical meaning within the context of the Plat.
This would be the GLO Surveyor
No, the GLO surveyor never set the Lot corners (other than the Section and quarter corners). The Lots were created by protraction on the Plat. The first surveyor is the guy who did not know what he was doing. The fact that he set monuments in the wrong place does not mean that we do not accept them and follow in his footsteps.
Then you have the case where someone owned the entire quarter and split it into fourths and totally ignored the Lots per the GLO data.?ÿ We have encountered that too many times to count.
@holy-cow you have case law covering that very subject, I forget the name of the case. I agree with the reasoning of your Court.
@jim-in-az Never say never...
We have several areas where the minor subdivision corners were set by the General Land Office.
On other notes, I am a but confused by the title of the thread. Lotting part of a section does not make it fractional. An invasion resulting in a missing (not established) section or quarter corner is the determining factor..
The GLO Field Notes do not indicate that the Lot corners were set by them.
?ÿ
The thread title refers to the Deed description stating that fractional portions of the section are "aka" government Lots. The "NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4" is NOT the same as Lot 4. If I am trying to set the corners of this parcel as described in the Deed, do I reestablish Lot 4, or do I establish the (fractional) NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4?
You are correct.?ÿ But, I've seen thousands of references to closing sections being "fractional" sections.?ÿ I tend to avoid the term as I can't think of ever encountering a true fractional section.
The GLO Field Notes do not indicate that the Lot corners were set by them.
?ÿ
The thread title refers to the Deed description stating that fractional portions of the section are "aka" government Lots. The "NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4" is NOT the same as Lot 4. If I am trying to set the corners of this parcel as described in the Deed, do I reestablish Lot 4, or do I establish the (fractional) NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4?
In my opinion you stake the Lot unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, either it was surveyed by mid-points or there is a clear statement in the Deed to ignore the Lot.?ÿ I take the NW1/4 of the NW1/4 as identifying the square on the Plat intended to be conveyed.
I've seen Patents where they used the aliquot descriptor instead of the Lot number but the acreage they state equals the Lot acreage on the Plat.?ÿ There seems to have been confusion on the issue even in the early days and Land Owners may not have understood the distinction.
There seems to have been confusion on the issue even in the early days and Land Owners may not have understood the distinction.
Their eyes gloss over and a monkey banging cymbals starts playing in their head
Stake the Lot, they AKA'd it so I would use it as the control.?ÿ
Doesn't mean the Lot will be a math position, if landowners have already established it, I would follow them (probably).?ÿ
I might even call the mid-point fence line on the N-S centerline the SW corner of Lot 2 if that's what landowners did.?ÿ
We are getting 120-140 years from settlement times and it's really not up to modern day surveyors to upset established boundaries.?ÿ?ÿ
Of course, ground and chain of title evidence might point to another answer.?ÿ
If this is a virgin (sounds like it's far from it) section, I would state the Lots as math solutions.?ÿ
?ÿ