Encountered an oddity yesterday. Situation involves a north-south Indian Treaty Boundary line predating the Government establishment of the sections to the east of the line and, then later, the sections to the west of the line. The north-south line began at the northwest corner of the Treaty area and ran south for roughly 50 miles. Each stone was set 80 chains to the south of the one immediately prior to it.
OK. The next year, the Government survey crew came in and laid out all the Range and Township lines for the area to the east of this line. So, you have a Section 5. The Indian line is done one year. The north line is laid out the next year. A few months later the remainder of the section lines are laid out in that township, stopping at the Indian line. The north section line at that point, for example, shows 40.00 chains west from the northeast corner to the north quarter corner which was set on return from finding the Indian stone at 53.43 chains west of the northeast corner. Then they moved to the southeast corner of Section 5 and ran west to the Indian stone there at something like 52.94 chains west of the southeast corner, then returned to the point 40.00 chains west to set the south quarter corner.
OK. Six months go by. Now the Governement survey crews are unleashed on the land to the west of the Indian line, including the remainder of Section 5. They come from the south and set the southwest corner of Section 5. Then, they traverse east to the Indian stone found earlier, return and note that distance to be something like 37.02 chains. They then traverse up the west side of the section to the northwest corner. Then, they traverse east to the stone found there previously on the Indian line. They return and note that distance to be something like 36.48 chains. Then they head back down the west line to set the west quarter corner appropriately.
Here's the problem. On the south line, the 37.02 in the field notes magically becomes 36.95 on the plat. On the north line, the 36.48 in the field notes magically becomes 36.57 on the plat.
Do you hold the number in the notes or the number on the plat?
FYI, this situation results in some entertaining Government lots. In Section 5 there are a total of 9 lots. Numbers 1 & 2 are the typical equivalents of the NE4/NE4 and NW4/NE4. Lot 3 is about 13 chains east-west by about 39.40 chains north-south lying between the Indian line and the north-south quarter section line in the Northwest Quarter. Lot 4 is directly to the south and also in the Northwest Quarter but is the standard 40 chains north-south. Lot 5 is directly to the south of that, in the Southwest Quarter, but is the 13 chains wide by 80 chains north-south. Lots 6,7,8 & 9 are similar to the standard lots you would find along the west side of Sections 6,7,18,19,30 & 31 except that they are roughly 37 chains in the east-west direction.
It so happens I have a second survey to do exactly five miles to the north of this one, which falls in Section 8, involving the same Indian line. Section 8 only has a total of six Government lots. Lot 1 is the equivalent of the combination of Lots 3 and 4 as described above, so it is about 13 chains wide by 80 chains north-south. Lot 2 is the same directly to the south in the Southwest Quarter. Lots 3,4,5 & 6 are similar to Lots 6,7,8 & 9 as described above.
Another question for you PLSSia experts. Due to the method used to create all sides of the section, is the center corner to be set at the midpoint of the line connecting the south and north quarter corners, or is it to be set in standard fashion, ignoring the possible major deviation brought on by the time delay between the first survey in the section and the final survey completing the section--possibly being performed by different crews with different chain lengths and other issues?
Generally, once a PLSS plat is accepted and approved as official by the surveyor general, it prevails over the field notes.
See:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16233280730779262531&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
There was a discussion of the last question, or similar question, several years ago.[msg=65643]LINK[/msg]
Some of the GLO plats from Nebraska were updated as new information became available. For instance, a plat that was surveyed in 1874 and approved by the Surveyor General in 1875 has newer notations and lines for military reservations that didn't occur until the mid to late 1880's. Without knowing this history, one would initially think everything on the plat came from 1874 at the time of the original survey.
You're Good
The section in that thread is in between the two sections discussed today.
It's just one of those oddities that we get to play with from time to time. Mentioned it to get others to think about what they would do in a similar situation.
Respectfully Carl, in my opinion the notes AND plat bear equal weight:
In the case of Cragin v. Powell (128 U.S. 691, 696), the Supreme Court said:
“It is a well settled principle that when lands are granted according to an official plat of the survey of such lands, the plat itself, with all its notes, lines, descriptions and landmarks, becomes as much a part of the grant or deed by which they are conveyed, and controls so far as limits are concerned, as if such descriptive features were written out upon the face of the deed or the grant itself.”
That being said, I don't personally believe you can define categorically that either one supersedes the other. I have seen obvious errors scribed on both. Rerunning the lines is the only definitive way to determine which one is a more accurate report.
I agree completely with the quotation from the case you cited.
All of the elements mentioned are important in a retracement. But if I find the "landmarks" called for, and they disagree with the plat or notes, they are going to take precedence over them. So not all of the elements in a description hold equal weight. I don't think that the court intended to state that they all had equal weight.
I respectfully believe your case cite concerns a different situation from the one presented by the OP, where the field notes and the official plat are in substantial disagreement for no known or discoverable reason.
My understanding of your case is that it concerns a challenge from a later surveyor to the original GLO survey as being defective, not a discrepancy between the original plat and notes.
My case cite was from Clark, Fourth Edition, which states:
"As respects the original government survey, the plat prevails if it is in conflict with the field notes, since it is the lines and quarters approved by the surveyor general and by which the land was sold."
