Stickney (working for the Lumber Company in 1888) ran the north-south centerline as a straight line from the found north quarter to the found south quarter (as I drew on the sketch). He set a new stake at the west center of section.
I agree, he should have left it where he found it.
The west center of section is now a 1-1/2" iron pipe broken off below ground level with a spike stamped LS1880 in it. That is Glover's LS number, don't ask me, I don't know why he did that then testified to something substantially different. The pipe was set by W.G. Corbitt (his R.E. number is scribed on nearby stumps). Corbitt was working for the National Park Service in the 1930s (in connection with Mendocino Woodlands to the south). I don't know why the NPS was in Section 7, they had no particular reason to be there.
The east (you could say original) center of Section has a driving head monument set by Glover in the 1960s and 18' east a pipe and cap set by the department surveyor in 1987.
The dates made me wonder about the patents in the South half but I didn't research it like you did. Using your discovery's, I am in full agreement with you.
jud
We also have Stickney's notes from 1902 where he notes there is a north-south fence at the east center of section.
Section 7 diagram with note added at west center of section:
Section 7 on the MTP:
Jud...
Note on 1866 Plat:
"Note: Besides the fractions of Sections returned as Surveyed, the Areas of which are shown by red numbers on this Map, the Deputy Surveyor in his final remarks recommends the fractions colored green for entry on account of the valuable Redwood and Fir timber they contain, although owing to the broken character of the country it was impracticable to establish all the corners belonging thereto. The estimated Areas of these fractions are shown by green numbers."
> 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.
The pattern is familiar from West Texas blocks of nominally mile-square surveys where a convenient route was traversed through the block, calculating the latitudes and departures along the way and stubbing off from the traverse to set survey corners that ended up way the heck out of whack because of a calculation error. When I get a chance later, I'll post an example of a block that was surveyed (or "field noted" )in about 1881 by that method.
Jud...
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).
If the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 was sold and possession taken based on the 1866 surveys, which you would expect if for no other reason than that the Federal Government did not make a practice of disposing of unsurveyed lands. That sale should have established the Center Quarter. That stake found in 1888 noted as supposed to be the Center of section probably was and probably used as the center of section for the 1866 sale. What has happened since should not move that corner even if occupation and claims of ownership may have destroyed the intent of the 1866 survey. Clear where the Center of Section is, who owns what has became a matter of the courts or owners agreements.
jud
when was this appealed? Oscar has been dead for over 20 years
Jud...
Note on the 1878 Plat:
"Note: Contract for lines colored brown was not approved by General Land Office, and this map is approved subject to approval of said contract."
Maybe that explains why Woods' notes were filed much later.
All 3 plats are available at glorecords.blm.gov but not the field notes (we have copies at the office).
> when was this appealed? Oscar has been dead for over 20 years
My understanding is that Thompson got a new surveyor (Joos) who provided a different arguement for an entirely new case at the superior court level. Thompson/Joos were apparently successful in convencing the trial court that Joos was better at retracing the original footsteps than Larson was.
As I understand, the appellate decision rejected Glover's use of proportioning over Larson's evidence of original footsteps. Apparently a new trial at the superior court level was undertaken to decide the superiority of original evidence as opposed to the first trial which tried to discredit original evidence in favor of proportioning.
Regardless, the Thomspon v State of Ca case still stands unchallenged as to its determination of principle. The 2nd trial case at superior court level however has adjudicated a different conclusion of location based on an different legal challenge.
The appellate reversed the 1st trial court based solely on Glover's inappropriate use of proportionate measure. This left the door open for challenge in a new trial based on the superiority of original evidence.
I would love to see the 2nd trial case proceedings. I am very curious how the original evidence perpetuated by Stickney at the N 1/4 corner was discredited.
Your summary is pretty accurate.
The Glover R/S is filed at Case 2, Drawer 10, Page 28, Mendocino County Records.
The Joos R/S is filed at Case 2, Drawer 20, Page 25, Mendocino County Records.
I have them on disk but not here in the hotel.
I also have Stickney's notes in PDF form. These are copies typed from the originals in 1955. We also have the original field books but I haven't scanned those.
Stickney found one BT at the NE Corner, 2 stumps and the remains of "probably" a madrona. I assume the oaks were probably Tan Oaks. Plus he found a new stake and an old stake alongside. This is in 1888. At the famous quarter section corner he found two BTs, a hemlock and an oak described as a black oak in the notes (I haven't noticed any black oaks out there). These corners were perpetuated by Stickney, Gorlinsky, Stickney again and Lermond in 1939.
Joos notes in 1973: 1/4 COR. POSITION ON SEC. LINE BY OLD N & S FENCE LINE THRU CENTER SEC. 7, AND GOVT. CALL OF DRAW 99 FT. EAST.
and
SECTION COR. POSITION DETERMINED BY ALIGNMENT OF FD. 1/4 COR TO NORTH, AND EVIDENCE OF OLD FENCE ALONG SECTION LINE AND GOVT. CALL OF RIDGE AT 8 CH. (528 FT.) NORTH OF COR.
The Stickney corners fit the most obvious topo call out there, Berry Creek.
We also have the Judges Memorandum of Decision. The Judge opined that the Lumber Company Surveyors (Stickney) were up to shenanigans (his word) out there. I don't have it with me.
Very interesting.
Am curious as to evidence judge used to throw out Stickney's perpetuations. Also curious if it was strong enough evidence to convince the state to not appeal the 2nd trial court decision, or if the state simply decided to cut its losses. I have a hard time believing there was a clear preponderance of evidence that Stickney lied, but perhaps there was.
Regardless, I would imagine after as much time has passed since the 2nd trial court proceedings, it is pretty much moot at this point.
thanks for the information. This is very interesting that a landmark CA decision much of us are familiar with didn't result in the ultimate boundary location.
I think a second appeal would be on the facts and would more likely than not be upheld on substantial evidence.
I will email the memo of decision when I get back.
Bearing trees are far better evidence of the corner positions than are distant topo calls to features that by there nature, do not lend themselves to as precise measurement as do bearing trees.
It seems odd that the court would discount the BT and blazed line evidence in favor of someone using topo calls and fences not shown to have been placed baced on original evidence. If the topo calls and fences are the only evidence, then it makes sense to hold them over resorting to proportionate measurement, but if you have the blazes, you have the actual original lines, and if you have the BTs, you have the actual original corners.
What am I missing? Was there credible evidence presented that Stickney made up the blazes and BTs?
Without being able to review the retried case, this is beginning to seem somewhat like Martin v. Van Bergen, in which the only surveyor involved to testify was the one who's map indicates shortcuts and suspicious facts (recall the surveyor's statement about a "record data" survey - w.t.h. was that?!), and the shoddy surveyor testifies that the dead and obviously more diligent surveyor was wrong - with no challenge of the assertion by the incompetent opposing counsel.
I wonder if in this case, Thompson's side simply claimed that the long gone Stickney was a liar, and there was simply no one brought by opposing counsel to challenge the unsupported and spurious assertion.
If we aren't diligent, we're going to end up with a whole body of distorted common law based on shaky assertions made by unscrupulous attorneys and witnesses on one side left unchallenged by incompetent opposing counsel that has no idea what facts are important to the case, and incompetent expert consultants/witnesses that don't know how to advise their clients because they are so afraid of appearing to practice law that they are afraid to provide a complete and well-reasoned opinion to either counsel or to the court.
I don't think that what Keith described that he did with the protraction of that MT Twp should have caused any problems. In fact, it was probably the best and most equitable solution under the circumstances.
The prescribed method of placing the C 1/4 at the intersection of straight lines between opposing exterior 1/4s was predicated on a nominally square, or normal section. The are prescribed method for a fractional section is different because of the recognition that the section is not normal. There is no prescribed method for a significantly deformed section, unless that section be elongated (method being additional govt lots).
The survey of the Twp Keith described was apparently a resurvey. I'm willing to bet that the original Twp plat showed normal, or relatively normal sections with no bearing breaks at the E & W 1/4s.
What is the normal procedure for the N'ly tier of sections? It's to place the errors in the most N'ly division of the section, right? Only the instructions account only for a distance excess or deficiency. It becomes a matter of professional judgment as to what to do if there is a significant angular error in that N'ly tier.
In a case like that, placing the N'ly 1/4 at midpoint between the E & W 1/4s would be in keeping with the principle of containing the error of the fractional section in the N'ly most portion of the section. This keeps the S'ly half as close to normal aliquot divisions as is reasonably possible - one of the primary goals of the prescribed method of placing the errors in the most N'ly portion of the section.
In the N 1/2 of the section, because of the excessive variance from cardinal direction of the section lines, it is not possible to create regular aliquot divisions, so it makes sense for the N-S centerline of section to be approximately parallel with the section lines N of the C 1/4.
That's probably what Stickney should have done, and probably what the surveyor who placed the stake for the C 1/4 prior to Stickney did.
When a section is encountered that 1/2 is of regular shape and half of very irregular shape, unless case law in the jurisdiction precludes it, it is probably best to isolate the effects of the deformed portion to that portion and to divide the regularly shaped portion as closely as possible into regularly shaped aliquot divisions.
Unfortunately the State didn't push the dispute into the South half of the section where Thompson was a loser.
We have several folders of stuff on this case. I will forward some of it in a few days.
As you know, there is some weird stuff going on in the SW quarter.
I haven't figured out how the south half of the NE quarter got from patentee Erick Warner to Caspar Lumber Company. I did find one thing where they recorded the deed about 50 years later (different area) so it's possible they didn't record their deed in. They deeded the property from CLC 1880 to CLC 1931 in 1931 so presumably they had title to the NE quarter by then.
Local Magnetic Anomaly?
> 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.
Has anyone ever checked the local declination at points along the east line of the section, as opposed to regional declination?
Sections like this are common on the Minnesota Iron Range, as shown on the topos below. I never heard of any iron deposits in California, but that would not rule out a body of magnetic rock that no one knows about.
The above topo of Secs. 2-3-10-11 (T60N R20W 4th PM) only shows one monument recovered as of the date of the map, but those kinks in the roads are there for some reason, and it couldn't be the terrain. The roads probably were built along old fence and occupation lines, which in turn reflected the original survey.
The above topo of Sec. 8 (T62N R12W 4th PM) shows three recovered monuments on the east line. In this case the local magnetic anomaly seems to be confined to this one line, with surrounding lines roughly in cardinal directions, and the local declination seems to be greater on the south half of that line. If this can happen in Minnesota it could happen elsewhere.
Under this hypothesis, Woods set the NE corner, not knowing his direction was off, ran 40 chains west and set the N 1/4, then closed on the NW and found he was short 900 feet or so. At that point he could have assumed his chainmen had blown something in the rough terrain, or he could have just said "F** it." In any case, based on what Stickney found, Woods probably faked his notes.
Woods maybe closed north and east from the NE corner as he said, and maybe he didn't. If he set the N 1/4 of Sec. 8 when running east, its position would be a clue. If someone else set it, it might not be possible to tell what Woods did there.
Stickney, also running by compass, would not have much difficulty retracing Woods' lines and would not necessarily have suspected a magnetic influence. Did Stickney's notes give a magnetic bearing on the E. line of the NE 1/4? If so, how does that bearing compare to the actual geographic bearing of the line?
Local Magnetic Anomaly?
It's possible but not common in the area. I have heard one report of local attraction on a ridge several miles to the north.
Stickney never ran the east line of the NE quarter.
Local Magnetic Anomaly?
Larry Hyder gave a presentation at the Westfed conference in Coer D'Alene in about 1994 in which he talked about a survey he was helping another surveyor retrace. The other surveyor was one with a good reputation for recognizing evidence of the old GLO surveys, but couldn't find a particular 1/4 section corner that he knew should still exist.
Larry suggested that they use the same equipment used in the GLO survey and run the line from the section corner to the west, E'ly along the line. The GLO had used a magnetic compass. At one point they encountered an old miner's camp at the top of a small bluff or rock outcrop. At this point, they found that some local attraction pulled the needle off by several degrees. Rather than correcting for it, they continued continued chaining along the magnetic bearing. They found the corner by duplicating the error made by the GLO surveyor in the field.
That story drilled home for me the importance of considering the equipment & methods used, and the conditions encountered by the surveyor of the work I'm retracing.
Local Magnetic Anomaly?
:good:
It may be too late to convince the courts involved, but that would be the way to do it.
Walking the east line of the NE 1/4 with a magnetic compass and a handheld GPS would probably be sufficient to determine if there was something worth pursuing. Arctan 900/2640 = about 19 degrees.
The plaque at Camp 20 (on State Route 20, about 20 miles east of Fort Bragg):
One page of the Grantee index at the Mendocino County Recorder in Ukiah. I was looking for Caspar Lumber Company. I finally found it after searching dozens of pages covering 39 years from 1931 back to 1892. There are a lot of deeds into Caspar over that time period. The Grantor Erick Warner was miss indexed as Warren which is why I missed going up through the Grantor indexes:
Page 1, 2, 3 & 4 of my research notes, putting together a title history but not necessarily a complete abstract of title (way beyond the time available). BunBun is reviewing page 4:
