Notifications
Clear all

Government Lot 27

12 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
0 Views
(@loyal)
Posts: 3735
Registered
Topic starter
 

The nature of MOST of my work involves Confidentiality and/or Nondisclosure Agreements, and even the more-or-less ‰ÛÏopen‰Û projects are kinda hush-hush (at least while they are in progress). That said, I'm going to go out on a limb a little, and post a redacted example from a recent project (which may or may not be completed anytime soon).

This is a ‰ÛÏGovernment Lot‰Û identified by the BLM within the last 20 years, when they generated a new Supplemental Plat of a particular Section. The lot in question was identified as (lets say) Lot 27, Section XX, Township YY, Range ZZ.

A couple of years later, said lot was Patented to a private individual, and described in the Patent as Lot 27, Section XX, Township YY, Range ZZ.

Here is a sketch of said Lot (in white), and YES, it is 1 foot by 1 foot, by 2 tenths of a foot:

Bear in mind, that this ‰ÛÏRemnant/Fraction‰Û (GAP) was CREATED, and all three Corners Monumented, in the 1880s (or thereabouts). The Corners were monumented with 4x4x4 Wood posts set in mounds of stone, and remained in the Public Domain for over 120 years. There is somewhat MORE to this story, but maybe we can talk about on another day.

Loyal

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 4:06 pm
(@dave-karoly)
Posts: 12001
 

Loyal, post: 426850, member: 228 wrote: The nature of MOST of my work involves Confidentiality and/or Nondisclosure Agreements, and even the more-or-less ‰ÛÏopen‰Û projects are kinda hush-hush (at least while they are in progress). That said, I'm going to go out on a limb a little, and post a redacted example from a recent project (which may or may not be completed anytime soon).

This is a ‰ÛÏGovernment Lot‰Û identified by the BLM within the last 20 years, when they generated a new Supplemental Plat of a particular Section. The lot in question was identified as (lets say) Lot 27, Section XX, Township YY, Range ZZ.

A couple of years later, said lot was Patented to a private individual, and described in the Patent as Lot 27, Section XX, Township YY, Range ZZ.

Here is a sketch of said Lot (in white), and YES, it is 1 foot by 1 foot, by 2 tenths of a foot:

Bear in mind, that this ‰ÛÏRemnant/Fraction‰Û (GAP) was CREATED, and all three Corners Monumented, in the 1880s (or thereabouts). The Corners were monumented with 4x4x4 Wood posts set in mounds of stone, and remained in the Public Domain for over 120 years. There is somewhat MORE to this story, but maybe we can talk about on another day.

Loyal

The two 4x4s on the west have to be touching?

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 5:13 pm
(@loyal)
Posts: 3735
Registered
Topic starter
 

Dave Karoly, post: 426868, member: 94 wrote: The two 4x4s on the west have to be touching?

Yup.

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 5:26 pm
(@gene-kooper)
Posts: 1318
Registered
 

I'm sorry Loyal, but I just have to ask. Did the patent also convey the subsurface mineral estate? Or are they still retained by the Feds?

I think I can state without reservation that this patent contains the smallest area of any U.S. issued land patent. WOW! 0.1 sq. ft. 🙂

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 5:26 pm
(@loyal)
Posts: 3735
Registered
Topic starter
 

Gene Kooper, post: 426874, member: 9850 wrote: I'm sorry Loyal, but I just have to ask. Did the patent also convey the subsurface mineral estate? Or are they still retained by the Feds?

I think I can state without reservation that this patent contains the smallest area of any U.S. issued land patent. WOW! 0.1 sq. ft. 🙂

Nope!

"Excepting and reserving to the United States: All mineral deposits, in the land so patented, and the right of the United States, or persons authorized by the United States, to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from same under applicable laws and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe."

Still got the Imperial Entanglements.

Loyal

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 6:00 pm
(@aliquot)
Posts: 2318
Registered
 

Gene Kooper, post: 426874, member: 9850 wrote: I'm sorry Loyal, but I just have to ask. Did the patent also convey the subsurface mineral estate? Or are they still retained by the Feds?

I think I can state without reservation that this patent contains the smallest area of any U.S. issued land patent. WOW! 0.1 sq. ft. 🙂

Its not the smallest.

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 6:02 pm
(@gene-kooper)
Posts: 1318
Registered
 

Loyal, post: 426880, member: 228 wrote: Nope!

"Excepting and reserving to the United States: All mineral deposits, in the land so patented, and the right of the United States, or persons authorized by the United States, to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from same under applicable laws and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe."

Still got the Imperial Entanglements.

Loyal

Why am I not surprised!

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 6:13 pm
(@gene-kooper)
Posts: 1318
Registered
 

aliquot, post: 426881, member: 2486 wrote: Its not the smallest.

Please continue.

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 6:14 pm
(@aliquot)
Posts: 2318
Registered
 

Gene Kooper, post: 426885, member: 9850 wrote: Please continue.

I have seen smaller, I will try to find it. I think it was in New Mexico.

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 6:15 pm
(@gene-kooper)
Posts: 1318
Registered
 

BTW....Why did the Wedge Lode have side line dimensions of 1499.0' instead of 1500.0'? Other than avoiding the east end line being the east end point.

I know that the Belligerent and Other Lode Mining Claims Land Decision (35LD22) issued on July 16, 1906 determined among other things that the, "end lines shall have substantial existence in fact". I take substantial existence to not mean an end line can be 0.0 ft. long. That decision was well after the staking of Lot 27 though.

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 6:30 pm
(@loyal)
Posts: 3735
Registered
Topic starter
 

Gene Kooper, post: 426888, member: 9850 wrote: BTW....Why did the Wedge Lode have side line dimensions of 1499.0' instead of 1500.0'? Other than avoiding the east end line being the east end point.

I know that the Belligerent and Other Lode Mining Claims Land Decision (35LD22) issued on July 16, 1906 determined among other things that the, "end lines shall have substantial existence in fact". I take substantial existence to not mean an end line can be 0.0 ft. long. That decision was well after the staking of Lot 27 though.

Gene,

I checked the Plat, and the Mineral Survey was performed in 1898 (not the 1880s that was rattling around in my ancient skull).

The Wedge Lode shares Corners with both the Coyote and Cactus Lodes (not their real names). All of the Lodes shown were part of the same Mineral Survey, EXCEPT the Lost Lode, which came later, and shared its Corner with the Cactus, Coyote, and B.F.E. Lodes.

Loyal

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 7:03 pm
(@loyal)
Posts: 3735
Registered
Topic starter
 

aliquot, post: 426886, member: 2486 wrote: I have seen smaller, I will try to find it. I think it was in New Mexico.

I have seen SMALLER fractions (of record), but I don't recall seeing a [smaller] Formal Lot created which preceded to Patent. I'm sure there are quite a few around the West though.

Loyal

 
Posted : May 4, 2017 7:08 pm