It has been ruled in many courts that GLO is not subject to collateral attack. Some have taken it erroneously to try to imply that the distances and bearings that GLO wrote on their maps is not challengeable.
What is your opinion of what not being subject to collateral attack mean? Does it mean that their judgment cannot be attacked unless fraudulent? I would be very interested to see what the consensus on this is.
What it means to me is that land patented from government ownership to private ownership is what it was described to be regardless of any later discovered measurement errors. Title was transferred not only by what is shown on the plat, what is platted is controlled by the monuments the GLO placed on the ground. If the Plat shows 40 chains and it measures between found monuments as 41 chains, the monuments hold as described regardless of new measurements. Missing monuments are to be replaced by a proportional measurement holding the proportional record between found evidence and not replaced by the actual distance call from the plat. All in an attempt to keep ownership lines as patented, stable.
jud
I'm not a lawyer and only work in the Colonial States so I've never had to deal with the GLO.
My understanding of a "Collateral Attack" as it applies to the law means to file a new action, commonly in a different jurisdiction, to defeat an existing decision.
For example you lose a decision with the GLO, rather than filing an appeal in the Federal system (a direct attack), you file a new case in the State system (a Collateral Attack).
I don't think this fully answered your question, but hopefully it helps. Maybe one of the lawyers who frequent the Board will respond.
Even when proven without a doubt that the GLO work was fraudulent, as in countless cases in central and western Nebraska, the notes and distances still hold as the final say, unless an Independent Resurvey is issued through the proper channels and the previous work was voided.
I have researched several cases in Nebraska where known bad surveyors had really messed up some areas because the monuments (pits and mounds) were not set. Then land locators came along and made imitation pits and mound monuments, but never recorded that they had even been there. The court held that the imitation monuments were those of the GLO since no one could prove that they were not. It also said that just because one particular deputy surveyor was found guilty of fraud in one area, that was not admissable as evidence that he was guilty of the same in a different area. It could not be brought out during the trial.
