Fractional Sections, Fractional 40's

That there thing IS NOT a southwest quarter/northwest quarter. It IS a government lot.

Is it fractional?
(The GLO plat does not show it as numbered. ie, govt lot Num 2, etc)
Around here, it is sometimes referred to as the Frl SW1/4-NW1/4. In the title chains.

Yes, it was considered "fractional" at its creation.

I gauge parcels by either their patent or the instrument that created them (IF they are smaller than the original survey's instructions). The parcels that bore the excess or deficiency were labeled as "lots" so as not to create controversy over acreage. If one were patented the SE/4 of the NW/4 of section 30, the patent would reflect "containing 40 acres, more or less, according to the government survey thereof". Meaning of course the dimensions should be as prescribed in the GLO instructions.

And nowadays the term "fractional" may be different than in days past.

In a "standard" township subdivision the SW/4 of the NW/4 of 30 would be Lot 2. Since the smallest standard tract around here was a quarter section the SE/4 of the NW/4 would only be exactly that if it was created that way by instrument.

And there is always a fly in the ointment. Some Indian lands down here were subdivided into surplus allotments of "40 acres". By instructions the sections were not subdivided in the standard fashion we use today. The section was divided into sixteenths by cross chaining west to east and giving a proportional distance to each allotment. If the allotments were created in this fashion (called the "Three Mile Method") a "modern day" quartering of the section (brg.-brg) will produce very different results. Although not 'standard', these "40 acre" allotments are not considered fractional.

I avoid use of the term fractional as it gets otherwise intelligent people confused.

Your surveys are a couple decades older than our surveys. Practices changed somewhat.

We have some sections that I view as fractional simply because they will never be full sections. The ones that come to mind first are the ones bumping up against the Missouri Border.

Holy Cow, post: 407058, member: 50 wrote: I avoid use of the term fractional as it gets otherwise intelligent people confused.

Your surveys are a couple decades older than our surveys. Practices changed somewhat.

We have some sections that I view as fractional simply because they will never be full sections. The ones that come to mind first are the ones bumping up against the Missouri Border.

Seems as though the term "fractional" has taken on a newer meaning over the years. Apparently the BLM only uses the term 'fractional' when speaking of entire sections. I have however seen the term "fractional lot" dozens of times in older documents.

There are a couple of definitions for fractional sections. One is any section that deviates from the typical 640 acres, usually the north and west sections in a township. Others will argue that those sections are not fractional and only sections where one or more of the corners of the original section cannot be monumented create a fractional section. A river, or lake intrudes, the resulting section is small and some corners defining the section are not accessible would be one example.

An examination of the chain of title, the GLO Plats, and Survey history is required to determine whether the quarter is subdivided by government measure or by state common law rules (usually plain meaning of the words, e.g. equal areas). The final answer depends upon the circumstances at the time the quarter was originally subdivided and whether by Patent or Deed after Patent. The protracted lines on the Plat are not necessarily controlling.

The sw nw is a gov lot. I've never heard the lots called fractional, most registers of deeds in my neck just index them as 1/4 1/4 and often deeds will use that incorrect nomenclature. the se nw is not fractional at all. the section is not fractional, we call them closing sections. a fractional section is one that is incomplete. i.e. 230 acres because it is meandered.

Jon, that would sound a bit like Dennis Mouland.

Nate The Surveyor, post: 407077, member: 291 wrote: Jon, that would sound a bit like Dennis Mouland.

Dennis couldn't say that many words without interjecting a pun, joke or old story....;)

Jon Collins, post: 407074, member: 11135 wrote: The sw nw is a gov lot.

... in Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc. But Arkansas was much earlier, so it's not safe to assume the practice was the same there.

The official definition of a fractional section is a section in which at least one of the 1/4 corners have not been set. An iregular section is any section that was not reported to contain 640 acres. Of course local and historical usage of these terms vary and the official definition may not be helpful.

Without seeing your plat I would guess it was approved before naming lots became standard practice. If that is the case, unless local conditions dictate otherwise, it should be surveyed as if it were a lot, because the intention was the same before and after they stared naming the lots. If you are surveying for a private owner the name of the parcel should follow local practice.

Just to add a word of warning. There were some very early resurveys that were not labeled as resurvey on the plat. I assume you have the notes and would know if that was the case.

Yes, I have read the notes. Not a resurvey.
N

I believe the 2009 manual uses the term Irregular Section when describing one that contains more or less than 640 acres. Sections 3-118 and 3-119 gives the law definitions of a fractional section.

I did a quick search and in Arkansas in 1837 a patent was issued in Section 5 for the "East fractional half of the North East fractional quarter", then in the same section in 1860 a patent was issued for "the West half of the North East quarter and the South East quarter of the North West quarter" no mention of a fractional section. It's a "typical section" along a north township line. Hope that helps 😉

I'm in 12S, 31W
Little River Co.
SW AR

The patent says W2NW4, does not mention fractional section 30, or fractional parts,,,,,
I'm not used to seeing that, I'm used to seeing Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Patent was 1898

This was a 1834 survey. Lots were not standard then. The patent calls for an odd acreage in agrement with the plat. The surveying instructions called for the excess and deficiencies to placed here. The plat even calls out the internal parenthetical distances.

By 1898 loting was standard, but that patent could not have called for a lot that had not been platted. A good solution would have been a supplemental plat, but that was not done. Calling the aliquots fractional seems like a good way to acknowledge the non aliquot nature of these parcels.