again
This has nothing to do with measurement.... you cannot sell what you do not own....
I did not make this rule up....... So for the folks just doin' best they can
Do you accept every monument you find?
If you did not accept every monument you found, why?
again
> This has nothing to do with measurement.... you cannot sell what you do not own....
> I did not make this rule up....... So for the folks just doin' best they can
>
> Do you accept every monument you find?
> If you did not accept every monument you found, why?
No.
I am not foolish enough to do that.
again
i admit i dove in and had a good rant for my own amusement, but ...
if it ain't measurement (which it mostly ain't)
and it ain't repose or good faith or bona fide rights
what is it?
educate me?
again again
It has to do with understanding the role of the surveyor.
again again
Yah, another "it depends".
Some say that role is to report the facts, period, the end.
Some say that role is to, additionally, give opinions as to title, interest, benefits, intent, etc., and how all those things got that way over time.
What are the facts?
What is your opinion?
again again again
I would NOT give a cookbook answer. Brown descibes the role of the surveyor. Justice Cooley describes the quasi-judicial function of the surveyor. How could I hope to improve on their decriptions. My role is further defined by the state where I practice. The standard of care as practiced by the profession shapes the role of the surveyor. I endeavor to practice within the standard of care.
How can that be?
I swear I'm at a loss to explain why surveyors who practice under two distinctive land tenure systems (the later and more prevalent one being designed specifically to eliminate some of the issues being discussed by creating huge simultaneous conveyances), spread amongst 50+ separate legal jurisdictions that are free (within reason) to establish their own interpretation of boundary law, feel the need to pontificate to professionals in other jurisdictions how to practice their craft.
I've read it twice now. This is one of the themes that I see in these debates as well as the whole Wisconsin vs. Texas thing, too. I sure hope that anyone who choses to survey in my jurisdiction takes the time to properly educate themselves in state caselaw. In Texas, Ken Gold's "Decisions" is a good place to start along with access to a good law library. Since the title derives from Spain/Mexico/Republic of/State of Texas and never from the US, I find it hard to see, in most cases, why one should look to the Supreme Court for case law except where state and federal boundaries are concerned. For that reason, I feel I am unqualified to survey in PLSS states and try not to comment about it. I have not read the cookbook.
Andy
Funny when there are no answers!!
Not much of a puzzle, Andy
> Since the title derives from Spain/Mexico/Republic of/State of Texas and never from the US, I find it hard to see, in most cases, why one should look to the Supreme Court for case law except where state and federal boundaries are concerned.
Oh, this one isn't really that much of a puzzle. What is involved is a very old principle of common law regarding how the lines of a senior survey are to be determined from the marks and calls of ... that senior survey.
A former desk rider at the BLM and a mineral surveyor with time on his hands claim that this is in fact not a well settled principle. The decision rendered by the US Supreme Court in 1888 shows that they are quite wrong. More than 120 years ago, in 1888, that principle was described by the the court as being "obvious". You will recall that Texas adopted the Common Law as the rule of decision at an early date before statehood, so the well settled principles of the common law, unless directly contradicted by statute or the decisions of Texas courts are always material.
BTW, Clement v. Packer has been cited by at least one Texas court in connection with surveys in a block system.
Andy
How's that, Keith? How should I have an answer for your question? Do you want to know how it is done in Texas or are you looking for me to defend the practice in Virginia? I'd be happy to quote you the Texas case law, and I think Mr. Harris has already done that once.
Let me go look for your question so I know what you are asking for.
EDIT
Hmmm, the stacking on these replies gets confusing. I see now your reply was directed at Kris.
An interesting post, James
and I don't quite get this?
You will recall that in metes and bounds we talk about junior/senior, we are talking about date of deeds but you will also recall that the public land system is primarily a giant simultaneous creation there is not a lot of junior/senior situations when it comes to title, but there is a junior/senior situation or relationship that exists in the public land system, but it is different it is not one based on the date of the deed, but rather the approval dates of the survey.
Everything in the PLSS was not surveyed at the same time and all patents were not issued at the same time, so am at a loss to understand your point.
I will repeat my question here and see if you have an answer. The State owns a section of land and the adjoining section is Public Land. As a Federal land surveyor, I was directed to retrace the section line between the two "owners" in order for the Federal land manager to be able to manage the land. There is mixed ownership within the section, so there is a need to set 1/16 sec. cor. monuments on the section line and you subsequently retrace my work and find my cor. monument to be off line by a link. What do you do; accept my monument in place or reject it?
This example does not get any simpler and of course both sides are sovereign, so the King argument does not apply.
Maybe you don't have experience in the PLSS, but it would seem that the example is simple enough to understand.
Just curious.
Keith
cptdent
If you don't want to play here, there are plenty of other threads to join in.
Keith
Kent
simply cannot make a reasoned (?) post without an insult.
Is that a mental problem Kent, or simple being narcissist?
Keith
An interesting post, James
> Everything in the PLSS was not surveyed at the same time and all patents were not issued at the same time, so am at a loss to understand your point.
Actually, isn't the salient point that the township plats were typically the result of a single survey and that all patents made in reference to them were made in reference to that survey? Yes.
Kent
That is basically right, but of course as you might guess, there would be many subsequent surveys/resurveys that would have additional monumentation that may or may not be prior to a specific conveyance.
But since you only use original monuments and ignore all subsequent monumentation, this would not apply to you.
Keith
Okay, but keep in mind, Keith
> That is basically right, but of course as you might guess, there would be many subsequent surveys/resurveys that would have additional monumentation that may or may not be prior to a specific conveyance.
Keith, the important thing to keep in mind is that inside a township that was all subdivided as a single operation and where patents were issued in relation to the same plat, THERE ARE NO JUNIOR OR SENIOR SURVEYS. Just because some surveyor runs out a line and marks a corner that was protracted on the original survey of the township DOESN'T MAKE IT A JUNIOR SURVEY. Any senior/junior rights that may exist were created by some later metes and bounds subdivisions of the simultaneously protracted parts of the sections upon which patents were issued.
the plan calls for corners
There are always exceptions, but the plan called for corners every 40 chains along township and range lines. The only protraction that would occur would be at the point of subdivision of sections. Not all the sections were subdivided within a township at the same time,ALWAYS. They did attempt to subdivide the section in an orderly fashion and they did try to complete the subdivision of sections one after the other until the township was completed. But it did happen where portions of and entire sections were left unsurveyed. Where this happened double sets of corners, may be found. Both of these sets of corners are original corners,controling different subdivisions.
The lands patented out already were basically treated as having SENIOR RIGHTS.The new survey(completion, or resurvey) cannot interfere with bona fide rights.
A great example of a senior line would be a rancho line. The confirmed ranchos were ran out and then the sections closed upon those lines. There is an example in New Mexico where the sections were subdivided up to a rancho line and then the confirmation was overturned,if memory serves. The plate look really goofy.
So my question to Keith would be,does his 1/16 corner bend the rancho line?
I have been told by BLM insiders that the idea of a 1/16 corner bending a section line was controversial, even among the BLM. At on time, the BLMers were taught that if the 1/16 was not EXACTLY ON THE SECTION LINE IT WAS SHOWN AS BEING OFF. The training practice has changed and a more reasonable protocol was adopted.
Does he want to bend the lines of rancho grants as well? :>
> So my question to Keith would be,does his 1/16 corner bend the rancho line?
There you go! Excellent question for him to try to answer.
Not much of a puzzle, Andy
It all sounds plausible but for the sticky point that Lord Mansfield incorporated the Lex Mercatoria into the Common Law back in 1748 or so. So by the time it got to Texas ... you could think you were outside Commerce but the Judge would be compelled to take Judicial Notice otherwise.
In the end, the individual state in this (or any) example is a municipal corporation whose charter derives from the parent corporation, the good ol' United States of America (tm), a Crown colony (albeit one surrounded in myths of independence, sovereignty, and allodial title) that if you follow the chain of title, was quit claimed, along with all future aquisitions, by King John to the Pope & his successors in 1213.
So the whole issue (who owns the very skinny wedge that is one link wide) is a moot point. Sort of like deciding whether the Sales department or Accounts Receivable is in charge of refreshments for the non-denominational holiday party.
The whole issue, whether to honor Keith's monument and put a bend in the line, or to honor the senior line and call his monument off line by one link, will be decided based on which attorney the judge prefers to go golfing with.
cptdent
If this were a more professional debate actually trying to come to a real conclusion, I would agree. BUT this is a simplistic "I'm right and you are wrong" childish spat over minutia.
It's not like the professionals here do not know the answer to this problem, it's that the answer has so many variables that are driven by each different situation, that this is like so many things in life...there is no black and white answer.
It's not the issue being discussed that is apalling, but rather the WAY it is being discussed. Childishly, not professionally. If surveyors want to be treated as professionals, they need to learn to act like professionals. That is NOT what I am seeing here. That is my point.
And sir, I'll pretty much post where I want , when I want, for my opinion is just as valuable as any other here.
