Taken from the 1883 Manual of “Restoration of Lost and Obliterated Corners”:
The original township, section, and quarter section corners established by the Government surveyors, must stand as the true corners which they were intended to represent, whether the corners be in place or not.
What does the last few words of that sentence mean? “…whether they be in place or not.”
How can a corner stand as the true corner if it is not in place or was never in place to begin with? Does this mean that the notes are therefore to be relied upon if it isn’t in place?
Nebraska has had at least two Supreme Court cases (State v. Ball and McShane v. Murray) where the original notes were rejected in favor of monuments that others (State Surveyor and a GLO resurvey) had determined were not original monuments, but instead imposters made by others.
The burden of proof by the court seems to always exist that if a non-original monument cannot be completely confirmed as an imposter it will be considered as an original. Both sides testified that the monuments in question were there and were not there at certain times. The monuments were pits and mound. The original GLO monuments were likely destroyed. County surveyors, land locators, homesteaders, etc., were making pits and mound corners resembling GLO monuments until a law came into place to stop the practice.
> The original township, section, and quarter section corners established by the Government surveyors, must stand as the true corners which they were intended to represent, whether the corners be in place or not.
>
> What does the last few words of that sentence mean? “…whether they be in place or not.”
>
I'm sure it is referring the status of the corner monument and how it should be treated during a retracement and/or a dependent resurvey, as in either existent, obliterated, or lost. The corners (as stated in the notes and on the plat) are presumed to have been set, and the lines run as indicated.
It would have been clearer if they had said "...whether the monuments occupying or witnessing the corner be in place or not".
I agree.
The original township, section, and quarter section corners established by the Government surveyors, must stand as the true corners which they were intended to represent, whether the corners be in place, lost or obliterated.
monuments control
Confusing wording written by the wrong people.
Another example: 3-4. By law, (1) the corners marked in public land surveys shall be established as the proper corners of sections, or of the subdivisions of the sections, which they were intended to designate, and (2) the boundary lines actually run and marked shall be and remain the proper boundary lines of the sections or subdivisions for which they were intended, and the lengths of these lines as returned shall be held as the true length thereof (R.S. 2396; 43 U.S.C. 752)
That one always makes me cross-eyed.
> (2) the boundary lines actually run and marked shall be and remain the proper boundary lines of the sections or subdivisions for which they were intended, and the lengths of these lines as returned shall be held as the true length thereof (R.S. 2396; 43 U.S.C. 752)
>
> That one always makes me cross-eyed.
The manual isn't making new law or defining a law that only applies to the PLSS. They are reciting a basic principle in the law that the length and direction of ANY line as reported in the original is considered as TRUE. A retracement of the line by a subsequent surveyor will undoubtedly report another measurement, however, the TRUE measurement is the record measurement.
If this fundamental principle didn't exist, then 40-acre tracts wouldn't be 40-acre tracts; 10,000 square foot lots wouldn't be 10,000 square feet. The resulting implications relative to zoning ordinances alone would be chaotic. "I'm sorry. Your surveyor measured that 100-foot frontage to be 99.85 feet. You can't have a building permit." No. It's a 100-foot lot!
There are good reasons for legal principles such as this one. Rather than going cross-eyed, we should learn the real reason behind the principle. We should also realize the impact that not having such a seemingly bizarre rule would have upon the unsuspecting public when they find that their approved lot is now undevelopable because of the way the boundaries were retraced.
JBS
If this fundamental principle didn't exist, then 40-acre tracts wouldn't be 40-acre tracts
hehehe, oh if only!!! Life could be so much simpler!!
Funny how those old guys knew what we can't seem to grasp:-(
JB..
Wish you come to Norman, Oklahoma and explain that exactly to the City Council down here.
We have a municipal water supply lake east of town. To regulate the domestic pollution the city will not allow development on any tracts smaller than 10 acres within the watershed.
Of course, being a rural area in the PLSS system we have a plethora of aliquot tracts being nominally 10 acres. When you turn the COS in to the City for approval with the acreage carried out to four places (that's what they want) and it winds up 9.9987 acres, they spit and cough and make faces and foul their britches...Code says 10 acres! o.O
It's taken a few years. They approve them nowadays. Up until recently I just reported the acreage as "10" on my survey.
Some people's kids.....
JB..
It isn't just the city/county types:
here is a recent dependent resurvey plat from the BLM (1980's era):
The main purpose of the resurvey was to get the minerals located as the Feds own little surface rights in the area but lots of mixed minerals. So these surveys were done and when the coal was put up for lease the coal companies leased them as 40, 80, 160, 640's. Record acreages. Well a fight ensued between the feds and the companies cause the feds wanted to calculate the acreages with the new surveys and the companies said no we use the record acreages cause they are "fixed".
So the BLM issued this plat:
There are people, even in the organization that "wrote the book", who just couldn't stand the idea of going with the record. Of course, what they didn't do was go to the field and see if there are any interior monuments or evidence that might change the configuration of the lottings, thus changing the acreage, oh well. Township after township is just like this one. If they just could have consulted JB while this was going on.
MY 0.02 BUCKS WORTH.
The wording makes perfect sense, in that the corners (positions) are true, even though there is no monument at that location. IF an original monuments DOES exist, that is the true location, regardless of what the plat shows for bearings and distances.
Geezer
JB..
> There are people, even in the organization that "wrote the book", who just couldn't stand the idea of going with the record.
... Even when the book says:
>>2-1 ... The measurements reported in the survey record are an important part of the overall survey. The results of original surveys, once filed, are considered unchangeable. In retracements and resurveys the measurements are subordinate to the original survey evidence; yet considerable problems can arise when erroneous survey measurements from the resurvey are incorporated into the official record. It is important to create survey records from accurate measurements to eliminate confusion and create a reliable record that can aid future surveyors in perpetuating land boundaries. (2009 Manual)
Retracement survey evidence should not be interjected into the title record. It screws up the title record. Keep the survey evidence in the survey records where it belongs.
JBS
JB..
that would be nice.........but.....you need to explain it to people who won't listen;-)
