Benjamin at age 5
No doubt ancestry.com has the best single database.
One can do a tremendous amount, nevertheless, with http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com which is free. Another great source is https://familysearch.org courtesy of the nice people in Salt Lake City. http://findagrave.com is quite handy as well.
For those who just want to have fun and do basic research from time to time, check out the free ones listed before paying any site. Once you get very serious you will find advantages to some of the pay sites.
Benjamin at age 5
at this point it probably becomes an exercise more for my curiosity than anything else. the site in question, as shown in the pictures, is 2 miles due south of byrd owen payne, on the other side of 35, fronting the nagodoches branch of el camino. (and thus, obviously, not adjoining the tract you spoke of, kent.)
the survey has to go out tomorrow, per contract. i'll likely have a conversation or three regarding this issue, and i'll more than likely take another visit to b-o-p later this week (time permitting), perhaps do a little more digging and see if there's anyone in the area who can shed some light. but at this point, like i said, it's mainly for my own benefit now.
thanks again, kent and hc- nice to get an edible piece of fruit off an internet forum every once in a while, seeing how they're so usually full of horse apples...
full of horse apples...
That is the nicest sobriquet I have received in ages. Thank you.
What very well may have happened is that the bodies were moved from the original site to the Byrd Owen Payne Cemetery. That might explain why the reference to the cemetery was dropped after 1935. Mrs. Sallie Netherland was not included on the findagrave.com site but that does not mean that she was not moved as well. The information on findagrave.com is added to the site by volunteers. It is rare that all graves in a specific cemetery have been placed into the databank. I would recommend you do a little wandering around in the graveyard, while whistling of course, to see what you can learn about the Netherland family if for no other reason than to come back and tell us what you have discovered.
Byrd Owen Payne
http://hayshistoricalcommission.com/cemeteries/Byrd_Owen-Payne_Cemetery.php
From another site:
ByrdOwen-Payne Cemetery
8 inscriptions
The Byrd Owen-Payne Cemetery is located in an area of Hays County south of downtown San Marcos known as Stringtown. It is at the southern tip of Stringtown. This area was settled in the early 1840s and was “strung out” along the road; thus the name “Stringtown.” Mr. Byrd Owen was on of the earlier settlers of this area; however, he is not buried in this little cemetery. His remains lie in the San Marcos City Cemetery. The earliest grave is that of Ellie H. Owen in 1879, a two-year old daughter of W.H. and Lizzie Owen.
The cemetery is almost destroyed (1988) from cattle and other livestock having been allowed to roam over it, At one time there was a fence surrounding the site. Mrs. Kutscher, who lived (1988) on the farm adjoining the property where the cemetery is located, and whose ancestors (Poseys) once owned the land, told us that when they had the property, her husband lept the fence up and took care of it. She also said that her husband had a gate on the road and a lane open to the cemetery. It has in the last few years been fenced so that you cannot enter without crossing private property. We found only eight stones, but there is evidence that many more burials were made there.
Mr. Doyle Williamson of the Hugo area of Hays County (1988) remembered attending the funeral of his grandfather Payne in 1912, when he was a young lad. The family “camped out” overnight.
In research we found records showing that a male Netherland family member had been buried in this cemetery, He died July 24, 1910; was born in Kentucky, and was the son of Benjamin Netherland.
To reach the cemetery from downtown San Marcos, go west on West Hopkins until that street becomes Hunter Road. There is a traffic light at the intersection of Hunter and Wonder World Drive. Continue on Hunter past this intersection for 3.6 miles, a short distance past Centerpoint Road. The cemetery is on the right side of the road, 25-30 yards from the roadside.
Thanks (1988) to Lydell Clayton, whose husband’s ancestors are buried in this cemetery, for accompanying us to this location and helping copy the inscriptions. Thanks, also to Mr. Eugene Herry, Jr., the present landowner, for allowing us to enter. Mr. Herry was surprised to learn that the bodies had not been removed from this cemetery.
1994 update: Under supervision by the Hays County Historical Commission’s Winton Porterfield and their leader, a San Marcos Boy Scout troop cleared the site. A fence was erected around the cemetery and a sign (Byrd Owens-Payne Cemetery) erected.
Is this the right area for your site as this is about 2 miles south of Byrd Owen Payne cemetery?
Benjamin at age 5
> at this point it probably becomes an exercise more for my curiosity than anything else. the site in question, as shown in the pictures, is 2 miles due south of byrd owen payne, on the other side of 35, fronting the nagodoches branch of el camino. (and thus, obviously, not adjoining the tract you spoke of, kent.)
Actually, the former Lowman Ranch, Ltd. tract extended from Hunter Road, along Centerpoint Road, past Interstate 35. In that area, a boundary of a tract described as entirely marked by fence posts would ordinarily mean that some research was needed to determine where the boundary was before the fenceline surveyors arrived to make a mess of things.
> the survey has to go out tomorrow, per contract.
Well, in this case, it sounds as if you're sunk. For future reference, though, it's ordinarily a smart idea to do way more research than you may be used to doing. Abstracting back to the 1860's, before barbed wire fences and before the railroad, should be standard practice on a tract for development. The title insurer probably won't be much of a help with that and it would be unrealistic to expect them to be.
Benjamin at age 5
i'm comfortable with the boundary. bounded by 3 public roads, posey having an established, monumented r.o.w. take from '06, 35, and old bastrop highway. hays county is content with the existing r.o.w. of old bastrop as i've re-traced it. there are only 4 adjoining private fee title tracts, 1 of which was severed from the 1935 parent tract (oops- 5, 2 of which were severed). and, fortunately, the other three adjoiners have been surveyed at some point in the last 20 years by various former employers- all of whom have conferred, shared records, and whose conclusions jive with where i've arrived (within reason, of course- fence post shots varying by upwards of a foot in some cases).
i suspect that, moving forward, there will likely be a "cleaned up" eastern boundary established in the form of a r.o.w. dedication along old bastrop, probably along the lines off offsets of the new baseline, which would eliminate upwards of 15 angle points (many of which are deflections on the sub-minute order over relatively short distances).
Benjamin at age 5
> and, fortunately, the other three adjoiners have been surveyed at some point in the last 20 years by various former employers- all of whom have conferred, shared records, and whose conclusions jive with where i've arrived (within reason, of course- fence post shots varying by upwards of a foot in some cases).
Yes, that's the red flag, right there: that all recent surveys have been fenceline surveys, presumably with zero boundary agreements involved.
Benjamin at age 5
i get that. and will likely suggest agreements be considered moving forward. the gist, though, is that there are monuments at every "corner", and a history of conveyances among all parties devoid of any significant discrepancies. while it'd be nice to something a little more definitive than a history of fenceline, fenceline, fenceline, vara- there exists nothing (that i can find) through decades of conveyances that suggests anything other than acquiescence to the same occupied lines. (and which also does not mean that adjoiners haven't been sufficiently surveyed and/or monumented otherwise.)
clearly this is a situation where rural, laissez-faire, convenience possession has sufficed. and while right now is probably where that ends, i don't suspect i'll be hanging myself out too far by holding what everybody has accepted for a long while now. there definitely exists the case that i could just chase back far enough and straighten out a few lines and eliminate a handful of calls. calls which, by the way, will be noted as one series of record calls. but, basically, that scenario would amount to effectively negating the work of more than a few of my predecessors and compadres, for the benefit of resolving a "conflict" or two that doesn't exist in the first place, in any sort of practical sense.
should any of this ever go to litigation (which i suspect has about a .02% chance of happening), i feel comfortable in the leg on which i have to stand. i've certainly had jobs where i knew it was incumbent to be "more right". i've also had jobs- of which i would qualify this one- where "more right" ends up being "wrong".
Byrd Owen Payne
that's the one. part of it, anyways. or, i should say, yes- it's in that photo.
Benjamin at age 5
> i get that. and will likely suggest agreements be considered moving forward. the gist, though, is that there are monuments at every "corner", and a history of conveyances among all parties devoid of any significant discrepancies. while it'd be nice to something a little more definitive than a history of fenceline, fenceline, fenceline, vara- there exists nothing (that i can find) through decades of conveyances that suggests anything other than acquiescence to the same occupied lines. (and which also does not mean that adjoiners haven't been sufficiently surveyed and/or monumented otherwise.)
Well, the relevant question in my view is record title. If you examine the conveyances in which the fenceline surveys generated metes and bounds descriptions, I would expect that you will see the usual discrepancies, i.e. "being that same land" and referring either directly or indirectly to some prior conveyance that used the original description of the line that morphed into a zillion angles of a fence zig-zagged back and forth along the line. The case to keep in mind is Mohnke v. Greenwood 915 S.W. 2d 585 (1996).
If the tract is to be developed, a prudent surveyor would locate the original line and report the deviations from it of the pasture fences that the fenceline surveys have used as quickie solutions. That way, the purchaser/developer has a good idea of what, if any curative work is needed. If the adjoining tracts have been subdivided, it may well be that a boundary agreement is completely impracticable at this point, so knowing where the original boundary is becomes that much more important.
> clearly this is a situation where rural, laissez-faire, convenience possession has sufficed.
Actually, the more realistic statement is that it's a case where all of the recent surveys have probably been made with an eye to speed and cost. The buyers and developers wanted to know where the boundary was, the surveyors told them it was the fence because it was easy, and the actual landowners probably never suspected that a boundary with a zillion angle points was actually originally a straight line.
> calls which, by the way, will be noted as one series of record calls. but, basically, that scenario would amount to effectively negating the work of more than a few of my predecessors and compadres, for the benefit of resolving a "conflict" or two that doesn't exist in the first place, in any sort of practical sense.
The real problems typically arise when land use changes and valuable improvements get built. When land is in agricultural use and isn't worth very much per acre, then the carefree surveying of fences tends to skate by. However, when eventually the actual location of the boundary becomes important, all sorts of supposed agreements tend to vaporize and the terrain looks much different.
What is the difference between an implied agreement and a surveying mistake? Often, nothing when the only evidence of the implied agreement is a fence that nobody knows who built or when and a surveyor who mistakenly described the fence as identical to a line that doesn't actually follow the fence.
Dowsers Needed
I was thinking that maybe we could get one of our best dowsers to focus in real tight in the proper spot on Google Earth then whip our their dowsing instruments and give it a whirl. They could probably tell you if anyone was still buried there, their gender and which way their feet were pointing.
I'm good, but, I'm not that good.
Benjamin at age 5
Kent I love my Torrens title as it takes the G out of guess work and the S out slovenly work...
RADU
Benjamin at age 5
> > Wow, seriously, thanks. An avenue I probably would never have gone down.
>
> I would recommend a subscription to ancestry.com to any surveyor. As a research tool, it will pay for itself when just such questions arise.
Agreed! It's been very useful over the years.:good:
I am not sure of your obligation
> i don't feel like i'm obligated. i just went back out to make sure i didn't miss it- that would be a giant headache.
Who do you feel is obligated to report the unregistered cemetery?
Benjamin at age 5
> I love my Torrens title as it takes the G out of guess work and the S out slovenly work...
So, in South Australia you're up to lovenly uess work? ? :>
Seriously, the area where the soloist is working is one that has suffered from very low-grade surveying since about 1960. There are some areas in Texas where the prevailing land use has been agricultural and many land surveyors just gave up on doing anything other than mapping fences on the theory that the fences always represented boundaries that represented limits of titles ripened by adverse possession, regardless of what Texas courts have said on the subject.
It was essentially a fiction that meant that a surveyor could just tell his survey party to locate the fences, resulting in some boundaries of relatively small (<640 ac.) tracts with hundreds of segments on the boundary, each running from some fence post to some fence post. In the meantime, of course, the original boundaries could still be located if an actual surveyor were ever to arrive.
I am not sure of your obligation
hadn't really occurred to me, honestly. having dealt with this issue a handful of times in the past, i'm guessing the title co. is gonna throw a huge fit and, basically, convince the buyer that they need to hire somebody qualified to go see if there are indeed any remains left there.
this is one of those circumstances where my professional opinion and my personal opinion on the issue aren't exactly copacetic. it seems like nobody has given two thoughts to this thing in long enough that zero physical evidence clearly indicating the presence of a cemetery remains. in my personal opinion, have at it. professionally, i feel responsible to locate obvious, visible evidence of a cemetery, and also to report to the title company and buyer whether it may exist on the property based upon the reconstruction of parent tract deeds. that is what i'm qualified to do. should i go call the county and tell them there might be 100+ year old skeletons hiding in the ground at some vague location that nobody can pinpoint? i don't know- good question. but i'm inclined to say it ain't none of my business to go reporting it of my own volition.
Benjamin at age 5
So Kent where does your great title insurance stand when the McMillan bulldozer moves in to clean up the surveying mess? Does your rigour then have adverse possession claims lodged by aggrieved because of their previously interim cowboy surveys redefined lines over real boundaries and encroaching neighbour's property?
Are their claims now starting against the cowboy surveyors ? Hate to have purchased a cowboy company ...
RADU
I am not sure of your obligation
Lonestar Locating LLC has experience with finding graves you can contact Charles at 832-683-5070.
Benjamin at age 5
> So Kent where does your great title insurance stand when the McMillan bulldozer moves in to clean up the surveying mess? Does your rigour then have adverse possession claims lodged by aggrieved because of their previously interim cowboy surveys redefined lines over real boundaries and encroaching neighbour's property?
>
> Are their claims now starting against the cowboy surveyors ? Hate to have purchased a cowboy company ...
Richard, most of the cases I've worked on lately where surveying mistakes were involved have been situations where the surveyors had failed to perform adequate research and had made some assumptions in ignorance of what the records disclosed.
Benjamin at age 5
Kent,
So are those surveyors pursued?
RADU