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.
I've got to tell you that you're applying for the Eugene Kooper chair in irrelevant obfustication. Texas adopted the Common Law as the rule of decision in 1840. The rest of what you write does not in any way alter the fact that principles of common law are used in Texas except as modified by statute or prior decisions of Texas courts.
again again again
Jeff Lucas said something that made a lot of sense, and it is applicable here.
Let's say Keith's 1/16 corner is out of line by 3 feet, and has been used by others for a long while, even two governmental agencies like Keith's scenario.
Let's say someone comes in to "fix" it, and sets it exactly on line the best they can do, and say they did a Class D or rural standard survey, and although they complied with Min. Stds., the absolutely true position is 0.15 feet east of its theoretical location.
Let's say next guy comes in and picks up this tiny error, and "fixes" it to 0.03 feet out of alignment.
Lucas asked the question about centers of sections (I think) asking something like, "What do we do--keep re-setting the points until somebody thinks they finally got it right?"
Where is the breakpoint on tolerance of this 1/16 corner? Is it 3 feet when it was originally set (and used), or is it 0.15 feet as re-set, or is it 0.03 feet? When does the transition from valid corner to pin cushion occur? Does it stop when finally someone is determined to have gotten it right? Does it stop when someone comes in an proves that the NE cor of section was off by 3.12 feet by re-proving the corner? Does it ever stop? Where is the quantum leap from acceptable to non-acceptable?
I say there is no set-in-stone rule over any of this, but from a common sense standpoint, I'd be pretty reluctant to not use the first corner even though it was 3 feet out of line unless there was some other reason not to use it. Really, would't this concept apply to every 16th corner ever set in America? Why bump the wasp nest?
Kent
Well, then according to your rationale that all surveys within a PLSS township are senior and there are no junior corners; then it is no problem at all in accepting my 1/16th corner monument that is a link off line.......thereby bending the existing senior line.
Right?
A subsequent monument that was set along a Rancho on a retracement will control that line, if in the words of the Manual, it was done in a careful manner.
About the same rationale that most surveyors would expect from their "junior" monuments that they are establishing now.
Keith
How can that be?
Smiling here, 6th!
Keith
Keith
NO! It may bend the ownership line, but it WILL NOT bend the Rancho line.
Frank
Well, another way to look at it is how Kent explains that the PLSS is just one big senior survey with no junior surveys to bother with, so that 1/16th corner monument that you spoke of, is simply accepted as a senior corner monument.
I hadn't really thought of the issue with that rationale before, but maybe he has the answer?
So, therefore, any and all PLSS corner monuments are to be accepted as original, senior and used where they are established.
Thanks Kent, THAT IS THE ANSWER!
Keith
Kris
Do your really advocate two lines in that situation?
Keith
Keith
I'll give you an example of my rationale. About five years ago, I was doing a gas unit West of here. The old deeds yielded me a boundary line agreement. Now both parties owned up to the survey line at a survey corner. They moved the line. No problemo there. They did not move the location of the original survey line. Their ownership moved, but the grant did not.
There ya go.
Kris
OKEY DOKEY!~
How can that be?
" If this is your life, I pity all of you. It's just sickening to watch."
professor t pities all of us...
Nope Keith- it depends
If your 1/16 is a link over the line ,in the case you laid out, sorry Charlie. The reason is that the state's bona fide rights cannot be interefered with. Now if your 1/16 was set as part of the original subdivision of the section or it was set before both sides of the line had been patented out, then it would be controling.
Not much of a puzzle, Andy
I will take that as a compliment, Kent. You may return to your remedial history studies.
Keith Please cite chapter and verse....
Are you saying that a surveyor can change the line that has been previously run and marked? The chapter on resUveyes indicates the contrary.What are we talking about here original surveys or resurveys, or private land retracements? Can you explain WHY THEY SET CLOSING CORNERS THAT CLOSED ON THE RANCHO LINE? If the BLM corners set to subdivide the sections also were conclusive as tO the location the ranhco line WHY bother with closing corners?
SO SHOW ME...
Frank it is not a measurement issue
there are other factors that determine if the corner is controling or not. If Keith set his corner as part of a resurvey, then it cannot interefere with bona fide rights. if he set his 1/16 as part of the original or prior to patents being issued, then the 1/16 is controling where ever it is. There is a game going on here on who can thump there chest the loudest.
Dane
That's kind of like what I've been thinking. The reason for the presumption that monuments control is to promote stability in boundaries. That's why pincushioning is not a good thing if an existing monument can be accepted as the corner it is intended to represent. However, accepting every piece of iron that happens to show up along a previously monumented and accepted boundary does not promote stability, it promotes the opposite.
Steve
Whoever is saying..........accepting every piece of iron that happens to show up along a previously monumented and accepted boundary ?
Not like some who won't accept any previously set monument!
Keith
Frank it is not a measurement issue
It is acceptance or rejection of the corner, and position must be coming into play in one form or another. It is a measurement issue at least as viewed partially by some in this thread. If the measrement was not an issue, and the point had been set perfectly without error, why would this even be an issue.
That said, I am agreeing with you that it is not a strictly measurement issue, but rather a position issue as an original corner that was proposed as a 1/16 corner. If I thought it was done by simple measurement, I would not have the same opinion presented above in my previous post.
