Govt. Lot Description

Off the top of my head it looks like the NW4SE4, but I'd go with how the patent describes it.

I did a quick search and it came up blank at that location for a patent search.

I'd agree. It can't be treated as a government lot. NWSE. The calls and monumentation hold per the original notes.

N one-half of the SW quarter, Section 12, Twp 8 North, Range 17 West.

That was my first thought, then I started to over think it and now I'm not too sure. Does the Section under water still count as the Section when you state the N one-half of the SW Quarter? Interesting one but I still think my original thought would be correct.

sorry, SE quarter

I'm not an LS, but I'd have to agree with Moe. They skipped over that part when assigning Gov Lot numbers, so what else could you call it besides NW4 SE4 ?

At first I thought it was just the hatched part, then I realized you said 40 acres, so I agreee that it's the nw4se4 or whatever aliquot part it is. The government lots make it look like it should be more complicated than that.

It's not necessarily what you call it; but more importantly, how do you survey it..;-)

Hi Jerry,

Are you questioning whether Fort Kearny Reservation as noted on the first plat or Fort Kearny Reserve (as noted on the later plat) should be mentioned in the description? If thats what you want to know... I don't know. 🙂 Other wise I agree that it is the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4.

If this is a trick question, you hooked a lot of us.
I've got to go with the majority: NW of the SE.

Don

I am going with NW of the SE, but honestly I don't know what the patent reads. I wanted to see if there were any other ideas that would come forth.

Yes, this "island" was once part of the Fort Kearny Military Reservation, but since that has been relinquished, I don't think it would enter into the description. Just the aliquot part of the section, township, range west of the 6th PM in my opinion.

I's go with NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Fractional Section 12....

I think it would depend on the patent date. He was apparently there in 1873, after the first survey, but before the 1877 survey.

If it was patented after the 1877 survey I would go with the NW1/4SE1/4. If he acquired title somehow under the 1867 survey, who knows.....

> I's go with NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Fractional Section 12....

That is to say, ...of the SE 1/4.....

> > I's go with NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Fractional Section 12....
>
> That is to say, ...of the SE 1/4.....

Is it the both the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ and the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ (of the fractional section)? (or the N ½ of the SE ¼ as someone else said)?

Did anyone else notice that they numbered the lots in the opposite direction than is the standard? Or does the direction of the river play into numbering it differently? Typically you would start in the NE and go west, then drop a tier and go East...(boustrophonically if I spelled that right this time).

It is not a lot. It is the NW1/4 SE1/4....with cultivated lands including the NE1/4 SE1/4

Pablo

Heck of a difference between the two links we were provided. Things must have changed a lot in 10 years to be that different.

I'm assuming the 1877 work overruled the 1867 work for some reason. NW4/SE4 works for me, without serious reason to search deeper.

I've found the numbering system for lots to vary quite a bit. In one section I worked with this week Lot 1 was in the southwest corner of the west half of the southwest quarter on the westerly side of the river, with Lot 2 being easterly and northerly across the river with Lot 3 being below it, directly across from Lot 1. In the next section to the west Lot 1 was on the far northern edge of the section, with Lot 2 being somewhat equivalent to being the NE4/NE4 with Lot 3 being everything east of the river south of Lot 2 and extending nearly to the south section line.

Many of the lots in the eastern part of Nebraska that were done in the 1850's are not numbered at all leaving one to only assume that they are numbered 1-4 (right to left) along the top tier and north to south along the west tier. This is making a bold assumption when there are no numbers on the plats.

I am somewhat working on a story about this and am finding random examples. Awhile aback I posed this question and I thought someone had stated there was some sort of numbering "rule" in a Manual, but I have never seen this. Please share if anyone knows about such a rule.

I googled it and found the following from a pdf online at this location:
http://www.pdhcenter.com/courses/l118/l118content.pdf

By Jan Van Sickle

> Fractional lots are numbered. The system of their numbering follows the same model as that used to number sections. It is a zigzag pattern that begins at the most northeasterly lot, which is Lot 1. Then continuing within the same section, the next lot to the west is Lot 2. It is important to note that the next lot is not necessarily immediately adjacent to Lot 1. The general plan is that Lot 1 through Lot 4 are numbered east to west sequentially as shown in Figure 1.1. The numbering scheme then drops down to the next tier of lots south from Lot 4 to Lot 1. Then the plan would be to sequentially number lots from west to east, Lot 5 through Lot 8, drop south to the next tier and number the lots east to west, Lot 9 through Lot 12. Finally, the southernmost tier would be numbered west to east Lot 13 through Lot 16. However, there are not necessarily fractional lots in each tier and aliquot parts are not numbered.

I haven't seen it in a blm manual, but I remember a blm cadastral surveyor (I believe) telling me this was the standard. I don't know Jan Van Sickle, but I have friends that know him. He is published, and apparently extremely knowledgeable.

It would appear to me that Ackey has two 1/4,1/4ers. Tasked with writing a description, I would say the SE 1/4, section 12, excepting therefrom lots 11 and 12. I would refrain from dividing the quarter in halves or quarters verbally because the intent is not to do so physically.