AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

GLO Statute

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
396 Views
j-penry
(@j-penry)
Posts: 1396
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Can anyone provide the verbiage for General Land Office adopted statute that made it illegal to establish a section corner that resembles an original GLO monument pits and mound? It was Revised Statues, 1913, Sec. 8717.


 
Posted : December 6, 2010 4:15 pm
holy-cow
(@holy-cow)
Posts: 25672
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Them dang statues are prone to getting things screwed up every time.


 
Posted : December 6, 2010 6:15 pm
RJA
 RJA
(@rja)
Posts: 2
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I've never heard of the statute, but if it exists or did exist I would be curious to know.

I recently found records from the 1930s in ND where a different federal agency was performing cadastral surveys and did exactly what you describe. In this case, the original GLO corners were marked stones (1890s). In the survey in the 1930s the US Biological Survey set some marked stones closely matching the description of the original, i.e. "a stone X by Y by Z marked 1/4 on W. face."

Hypothetically, this creates a difficult situation. You could have two stones marked in the same fashion out there.

I am under the impression it was unusual for them to do this. Mostly they set concrete posts with bronze caps.


 
Posted : December 16, 2010 11:15 am
loyal
(@loyal)
Posts: 3735
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I don't recall ever running across such a statute or regulation, but there SHOULD be one, even if there isn't.

Years ago, there was a County Surveyor out here in the Great Basin, who's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) when setting a PROPORTIONED PLSS Corner, was to hunt around for a stone of similar (if not virtually identical) size, shape, color and composition as described in the Original GLO Field Notes, and then MARK it as per said Field Notes! If the "notes" said "raised a mound of stone 5 links West," then he also raised a mound of stone 3.3 feet West...

This information rarely (if ever) got into the public records, so you can imagine how much fun it is to work in that county!

You CAN haw TWO “set/marked” (pretty much identical) stones, 'X' feet apart, and the one that “looks right” (mathematically), PROBABLY ISN'T!

Loyal


 
Posted : December 16, 2010 12:08 pm