Section 7, T17N, R16W, MDM (see diagram below).
(see State of California v. Thompson, 22 Cal. App. 3d 368, 1971)
Section 7 was Surveyed piecemeal by the GLO. The Range line was surveyed in 1866. The south line by a different Deputy in 1866 and I think he did the south half of the east line in 1866 too saying the land north was too rough, unsurveyable (it's all the same out there).
Woods finished the surveys in 1876. He says in the notes that he started at the east quarter section corner, went north a half mile to set the northeast corner, went east, then north, then west all on the random then true line. Everything fits within tolerances, of course.
[sarcasm]I mean they really did it that way, right?[/sarcasm]
Fred W. Stickney was a Land Surveyor working for Caspar Lumber Company. There are still B.T.s out there scribed "C.L.Co. B.T." He happens to share a name with a famous east coast architect like the nearby City of Fort Bragg shares a name with an east coast City.
Stickney started at the northwest corner in 1888. He went south a half mile and found the west quarter section corner. Then he went east on the centerline a half mile and found a stake at the "supposed center of section." Then he went south and found the south quarter section corner. Then he went east a half mile and did not find the southeast section corner but he did find the blazed section lines. Then he went back to the center of section and went east a half mile where he found the east quarter section corner. Then he went back to the center of section and went north a half mile and found no corner but found the blazed section line. Then he went east to Berry Gulch, continued pretty close to Woods' topo call distance and found the northeast section corner with one bearing tree and 3 stumps which fit the other 3 bearing trees. This corner is 900 feet too far west.
Then he ran west and found the north quarter section corner with, I think, one bearing tree (the notes are at the office). Then he ran the north-south centerline (about N10W and S10E) and set a new stake at the westerly center. That is a 500' pincushion ;-).
I think Stickney was honest. He noted bearing trees found (says nothing about blazes until later surveys) and there are some substantial discrepencies but mostly they fit OK.
Assuming the northeast corner and the north quarter really are 900' west (they fit the topo calls to Berry Gulch on the north line and a cardinal line run south from the northeast corner), how in the heck did Woods manage to blow it so badly? He got the northing pretty close so maybe he really ran east out of the northwest but if so he really blew his chaining. Another theory is he ran on magnetic north out of the east quarter (it's pretty close to the declination) but there is a Woods corner a half mile north pretty close to cardinal.
So, what's the problem? 😉
DAMN! I agree with Kieth... not good!;-)
so what do you see as the problem?
I did quickly scan the case that you cited, and only see it as a reaffirmation that Proportional Measure is an absolute last result.
I don't remember working in that exact neighborhood but I have found it as common for many completion surveys, and many big blunders due to nasty terrain and very low land values.
Who is Kieth? 😉
"i" before "e"
except after "c"
Or when sounded as "a,"
As in neighbour and weigh.
no one can help it if you spell your name wrong. (or do you pronounce it like "kayth"?)
😀
> how in the heck did Woods manage to blow it so badly?
Well, from your sketch, it definitely looks as if some lines were stubbed in and not closed. Was he running random traverse along a ridge line and stubbing off of it, but miscalculated?
Tom,
How about in proper names?
Keith
Yes, on the stubbed in lines, and it happened more than it should, that the deputy saved time and did not tie into the north boundary.
That procedure also did not show up any errors in his work!!
Until later of course.
There is a township in Montana, that I am aware of, that was resurveyed and it was obvious that all of the north tier of sections were not tied to the north boundary and consequently, the north half of the section lines looked like this sketch.
Keith
The question then becomes.........does the north-south section center line, go straight from 1/4 cor. to 1/4 cor. ??
Keith
Believe it or not, this is still an open question.
The Appellate Court reversed, new trial.
Oscar Larson testified for the State in both trials. Apparently he didn't do well in the second trial due to advanced age, couldn't remember a lot of things.
Norman Glover testified for Thompson in the first trial. He did not proportion the northeast corner per his R/S. I don't know why he testified that he did.
Peter Joos testified for Thompson in the second trial. He reset the Woods corners by different means (being careful to not say the word "proportion").
Hindsight is 20-20. The State must have thought this case is a slam dunk. They did not pursue a remedy such as quiet title and did not push the dispute into the south half of the section. They should have done both. This was purely a timber trespass action. The State lost the second trial and settled for money damages. We are trying to find a copy of the settlement agreement.
Thompson owned the southeast quarter and the northwest quarter. The State owns the northeast and southwest.
Despite advice of counsel, State surveyors implemented the Joos solution in the 1980s. So now we have a bastardized Section. We are trying to figure out how to clean up this mess. I have noticed that sometimes my predecessors did not look through the correspondence file or any files.
At this point I'm not as sure that Joos was wrong, maybe Caspar's surveyors did some shenanigans in the section from the 1880s to 1930s. The west center is closer to the top of ridge, better timber and the northeast corner was inside their ownership (they only gained). Stickney found a nort-south fence on the east centerline in 1902.
I am going to put together a chain of title because there could be something between Caspar and the other owners at some point in there.
Solution Defeats The PLSS Purpose Of Rectangular Regularity
Had the found center of section been held, there would at least be 3 160 acre quarters, and one with what is left.
The supplied solution creates 2 excess size quarters and no regular quarters.
That found center of section is Senior to the later resubdivision of section and should be held.
Paul in PA
Yes
No
😉
A little more information:
In that resurveyed township in Montana, referenced above: I as a draftsman drew the protracted north-south center line on a dogleg, that was parallel with the section lines. In other words the south half of the center line was northerly, and the north half was protracted on a line of about N. 45 degrees W.
Did I as a GS-5 draftsman, create those protracted lines at a different position than the Manual has guidelines on, with the statement that the center lines go from 1/4 cor. to 1/4 cor. on a straight line?
If you as a private surveyor, and asked to identify the SW1/4 of one of those sections; what would you do?
This does relate to the Dave's sketch and what should be done.
Keith
I have to go and cut some little boards out of big boards, so carry on!!!
Keith
"I" Before "E" Except After "C" And "K" Sounding Like "C"
Just sticking up for what's his name.
Paul in PA
OOPS! sorry about that... remember I am a second language learner and my Engrish spellin has gone to heck...
Someone approved your plat.
If those lines were relied on in good faith then I would say the north south centerline has an angle point at the center.
It was common to put the center on the mid-point of the east-west centerline.
wow I just lost a whole long post using a lot of words to say the same thing you just said.
I agree. That GS-5 draftsman caused a lot of problems, but the federal agency approved the plat. It is no longer disagreeing with one surveyor or draftsman now, it is disagreeing with the United States Government if you disagree with the plat.
Other problems can have occurred from this error. Chances are I am not the first surveyor out there. There can be a C-¼ corner set by a private surveyor at the intersection of opposing ¼-corners (perfectly legitimate method), and if that happened, chances are that there is at least one property that has relied on that monument location. And there can be a C-¼ corner that was set midway between East and West ¼-corners (based on the approved BLM plat) and there can be at least one property that has relied on that location. This could create quite the havoc over one snot-nosed GS-5 determining where a C-¼ should be, and it sliding through the governmental approval process.
Kent you shook loose something in my mind.
Maybe he traversed up Berry Gulch and blundered in there somehow. He got the northings close to right but something messed up the eastings. He then measured on-line east and west from Berry Gulch which would explain why the calls fit.
Peter's excerpt of the quad shows that Berry Gulch has a fork south of the section line. Both forks are in the notes (running from east to west) and he calls the little ridge in between.
You need to pay close attention to the Patent and survey dates.
The original survey of Dec 28, 1866 platted the fractional south half of Section 7.
An indemnity selection by the State of California was posted for the NE4SW4 was posted August 22, 1866, fixing the center of the section in accordance with the south half survey. The center of the section should be located cardinal north from the south quarter corner on the east-west line between the east and west quarter corners.
The subsequent completion survey was approved June 26, 1878.
Not sure how the state made their selection on the date stated as it pre-dates the plat approval, but it is the only issuance for the NE4SW4. The SE4 was patented on April 9, 1881, and the remainder of the SW4 was patented March 14, 1889.
The 1888 survey preceded the patents issued in the NE4NE4 and the S2NE4 being issued March 30, 1883 and Jan 14, 1891, respectively. It seems the 1888 survey did the proper thing by throwing all the error in the N2 and skewing the center-section line from the found stake.
I'd tend to hold the found "supposed center of sec 1888" as the C4.
JBS
