We've touched on this subject before, but I am looking for suggestions again. My survey is to define the East Line of Government Lots 1 & 2 in Section 19 (a Closing Section). The problem is that for some reason in Nebraska the government lots were not numbered until the 1860's. This particular area was surveyed in 1857.
I really can't call the line the East Line of the West 1/2 of the NW 1/4 because that is not right. I don't believe I can call it the East Line of Government Lots 1 & 2 either because they were not numbered as such on the GLO plat.
In the past some have suggested that it should be called whatever the original patent says. The original patent was for the "NW 1/4 of Section 19". It wasn't divided up until much later and the current deed for the owner says "The West 1/2 of the NW 1/4". It's not the West Half as I set my monuments at the proportional distances taken from the GLO plat.
I guess I could call it the West Line of the East 1/2 of the NW Quarter, but my client would want it to sound like it is personal to her line and not her neighbors even though it is the same line.
Opinions?
Interesting dilemma. One I've not encountered. I like your "west line of" thought with one exception. Because the entire northwest quarter was in one ownership the land can be split in any manner preferred. Hence, I might suggest describe it as "The northwest quarter less the east 1320 feet thereof" or something close to that. It is not vital that the lot lines be adhered to unless that is precisely where someone wants the split to be for some silly reason.
This still leaves the issue of what do you call a lot that was not numbered. Perhaps you could call it the northwesterly Government lot being in the northwest quarter of the section instead of Lot 1 as it never had the Lot 1 designation to begin with.
I have seen them called "the fractional lot of the NW/4 of the NW/4," etc.
I have also seen patents, as you stated, that actually called out "the NW of the NW, containing 39.04 acres according to the government survey". This actually identified it by acreage as a "government" or fractional lot. Although technically incorrect by today's standards, I'm afraid that was very common. It sometimes left us with a mess to sort out.
Similar to Paden's suggestion, I'd refer to it as the "East line of the fractional West Half of the Northwest Quarter of ..."
JBS
> Similar to Paden's suggestion, I'd refer to it as the "East line of the fractional West Half of the Northwest Quarter of ..."
>
> JBS
Arkansas has very few numbered lot per the plat. Most patents and descriptions, in these cases, call them "fractional"....
DDSM:beer:
> This part of Ohio has no numbered lots per the GLO plat. Most patents and descriptions, in these cases, call them "fractional"....
>
> It is not vital that the lot lines be adhered to unless that is precisely where someone wants the split to be for some silly reason.
>
Depending on the available evidence, it could have been the E/2 & W/2, and have nothing to do with the GLO division of the NW/4.
Jerry:
You say that the Township Survey was in 1857, so they evidently were working under the Instructions of 1855. Here is a couple of pages from the 1855 Manual pertaining to your question. The plat diagram is so small that it is hard to read, but it doesn't appear to have numbers in the lots on it. I would venture to say that the lots do have numbers even though they are not shown on the plat.
Here are my calculations where the corners will be placed based upon proportion of the GLO distances. My measurements are shown as "M". I'd appreciate someone checking my math. The "GLO-Calc" on the south line means it is a calculated distance based upon the mean of the north and south lines of the section since this line is the east-west center line.
I like the wording "East line of the fractional West Half of the Northwest Quarter of 19".
Sometimes we can tend to overthink these situations, but I have seen many times where the surveyor simply divides the distance in half on fractional sections. Either by ignorance or by not paying attention to where they are at.
There is an old fence/tree line that weaves its way along the line and my calculated distances are very close to that, so someone once knew where the line was located and it wasn't placed at halfway. The fence is basically on the ground. Thankfully I'm not dealing with a fence being way off from my proportional calculations.
1855 Manual
Charles, thanks for bringing these pages to my attention. Very interesting!
I agree with Doug, if the Northwest Quarter was originally patented as a whole parcel. Then would the government survey apply to any future splits. Is there any ground evidence supporting either method?
1855 Manual
The scan posted above by Mr. Dowdell, is from:
"A Collection of Original Instructions to the Surveyors of the Public Lands 1815-1881"
Compiled by Roy Minnick.
This book has been of great value to me over the years, and one of the BEST bargains I ever got in a "need to have" Survey Book. I believe that it may be out of print at this time (maybe not), but it is still available.
http://www.amazon.com/Collection-Original-Instructions-Surveyors-1815-1881/dp/0910845085
Loyal
1855 Manual
Here is a paragraph I found in the 1855 Manual in regard to Govt Lot numbering. Does anyone have an image of "Diagram A" or "Diagram B" from the 1855 Mannual?
1855 Manual
The book I described above has these diagrams, but they are very hard to read.
C. Albert White's book has much better images of Diagram 'A' & 'B' (pages 494-497).
Unfortunately, my scanner is offline today, maybe someone else can post a scan.
Loyal
I favor all those who have suggested referring to the fractional parts e.g. "The east line of the fractional parts of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 19".
The patent was for the NW 1/4 and the current deed is to the west 1/2 of the NW 1/4. Are there other descriptions in the chain of title? Is there physical evidence of the line? Should you be setting a line between the midpoints of the north and south lines of the NW 1/4? Or one of the numerous lines that create equal areas?
North-South centerline of the NW 1/4 of Section 19.
Working in states where "anybody" can write and record a deed, I've seen it both ways, sideways and backwards. With the intent, if discernible by evidence, being the priority. I would leave out any mention of "West Half" and state the east line of the fractional lot of Section 19 according to the official blah blah plat of Tsp Rge etc.
Mi dos centavos
Pablo B-)
While looking for something else this morning, I run across this:
"A description of the half of the parcel of land, according to the United States survey, would have excluded the idea of equal quantities and fixed the dividing line in accordance with the Act of Congress. If any other line had been agreed upon between the owners as the boundary line, it would govern the case."
Jones v. Pashby, Mich. 29 X.W. Rep 376. Dart v. Barbour, 32 Mich, 276. Heyer v. Lee, 40 Mich. 353.
Also found:
"In a deed of the east half" of a fractional quater section, the words "east half" refer to the government subdivision of a quarter section, and not to a subdivision of the quarter section by a line dividing it into two equal parts."
Turner v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 20 S. W. 673.
But then again, here's this one:
"A deed of the "west half" of a fractional lot containing less than a legal subdivision of 40 acres conveys half the area."
Owen v. Henderson (Wash.) 47 P. 215.
Please note that these case cites are from many years ago....... Good luck!!
If the fence shows the old occupation supports the "correct" proration theory and not a split then you have your answer. Now you need to decide if there was any kind of a survey to establish the fence on the ground and do you need to accept lot corners that may not be exactly at a prorate, that would be the big issue to me.
