[SNIP]?ÿ Of course we did have one owner of multiple large tracts that was known to move "original" monuments to locations that better suited him.
Andy [/SNIP]
That is a noosable offense right there...
The only superior evidence is that which you haven't yet found.
Speculation isn't the right term, but I would say an educated and informed assumption.?ÿ That assumption might approach near certainty under some circumstances but may be closer to "a bit more likely than not" in others.
If a monument is of the character described as the original, very close to that character, or of the character reputed to be commonly used as original monuments, that's the first step.?ÿ Some readers might be asking WTH did he just say??ÿ I'll provide examples.
An original monument might be described as a certain sized and type of stone with certain markings, and might have bearing trees or other reference marks described at certain directions and distances.?ÿ You find a stone of the correct size and type in the general vicinity you expected to find it, and perhaps you find one or more of the reference points at or very near the record relationship.?ÿ
The record calls for a wooden post set at the corner position.?ÿ You find most particulars reasonable comporting with the original notes and description except that rather than a post, you find a wooden post set in a mound of stone. (to some of you, considering that this is not the original monument as described, but I kid you not that a "senior" surveyor at a state agency a while back was rejecting monuments on exactly that criteria).
A subdivision map from about 1900 doesn't specifically call out anything as being set at lot corners, but by experience and well proven reputation, you are aware that nearly all surveyors practicing in this region at that time commonly set redwood hubs at all lot corners.?ÿ You dig down a few inches in the vicinity you suspect the original corner to be and find identifiable remains of a redwood hub.
In each of these examples, you have most likely, if not almost certainly found the original monument.
If the monument does not show physical signs of having been moved, I proceed on the assumption that it has not been moved.?ÿ Unless I have several pieces of reliable evidence that indicates the monument is in its original position, I don't necessarily proceed to completion of the survey on the assumption it hasn't been moved, but instead look for evidence that it might have been moved.?ÿ If I find none, I'm comfortable to move on and complete the survey holding the position as found.?ÿ If I find evidence that it might have been moved, then I have to weigh the evidence in favor of the found position against that contradicting the position as original.?ÿ Too many "what ifs" to discuss in a forum post there.
If I find a monument that is plainly not the original monument but is in the general vicinity where I had hoped to find an original monument, then I look for evidence that would link the found monument to the original corner.?ÿ In the best case, I find some records, maybe in the public record, maybe reflected on a survey drawing possessed by a landowner or in the private records of a presently practicing surveyor, that links the existing monument to the original monument. (i.e. a notation on the map or in the field notes of a reputable surveyor that says "found redwood hub, replaced with iron pipe).?ÿ Often, the validation of the existing monument doesn't include finding an obvious and direct tie between the original and the current monument, but is a consideration of several other pieces of evidence which may include survey records, physical evidence, and possibly even parol evidence.?ÿ Again, if the position of the monument is plausibly supported by the greater body of evidence, and lacking evidence that makes it a bit more likely that the present monument is in the wrong location than in the right location, I'll generally proceed on the belief that it is at least a reasonable perpetuation of the original location and accept it as such.
If the monument or cap are severely deformed, if the monument is sitting cockeyed as in leaning at an unlikely angle or perhaps even not oriented to North when you know by experience that the surveyor whose number is on the cap habitually orients his caps to North, then I start with the suspicion that it has been tampered with and is not in the original location.?ÿ I can recall many instances where a monument had (ranging from apparently to obviously) been moved from the position the surveyor placed it in and one instance where by most initial indications, the monument appeared to be undisturbed, but further analysis strongly indicated that someone with knowledge of what a surveyor would look for had very carefully moved it by about 26'.
Bottom line, there is no absolute criteria to make this determination.?ÿ Each case is a weighing of evidence supporting the found monument at the location you find it vs. evidence that it is either not the original and not in the original corner location, or is the original monument but has been moved.?ÿ Often, you can make that determination with a high degree of comfort.?ÿ Sometimes your left with a moderately queasy feeling that lingers long after you make that determination and proceed on your decision.
That's why we're licensed (even if some licensing boards have forgotten).
All I know for sure is that all surveyors are disturbed.
So how do you know that a monument is?ÿan original, undisturbed monument?
You use your exceptional surveyor intuition and wisdom.?ÿ This is why we get paid the big bucks, right??ÿ ??ÿ