In a post below

Browns Boundary Control and Legal Principles, 5th Edition, Section 10.46 beginning on page 281 (Principle 19).

I can scan it and send it to you if you don't have a copy, but I would be very surprised if you don't have one.

Marc,

I do not have that book and would appreciate very much if you scanned it and post it here or send it to me.

Thanks.

Keith

I'm not going to post copyrighted material to a public forum. I'm sure it's a violation of the user agreement. If you know how to get email addresses off the posters profiles, send me an email and I'll email it to you. Or someone explain to me how I can extract Keiths......

Marc,

I sent Keith the corresponding section (10.46) from the fourth edition.
if you want keiths email, send me an email to idbarbwire1@hotmail.com and I'll forward his to you (unless, of course he objects). 🙂

Fine with me, my email address is in my profile.

email address

Keith, I don't think your email address is published in your profile. You may have typed it in, but you need to check a check-box that says you can be emailed. If you do that, someone can email you through beerleg.com without seeing your address.

Go to your "edit profile" and check that checkbox.

email address

Thanks Adam,

I did that.

email address

I still don't see how I can email Keith through Beerleg anonymously. I can do it through the "other" board (and have - Keith, check your mail there or from there).

So Brian, I'm may be blind, but I see no option in my interface to do that. Help me if you can.

After going through all the trouble to find this and scan it, I'd like to get it to him.

email address

If I go to the user directory, and look up my username, I see a picture of an envelope under the "email" column. I an click it and send an email to myself without seeing the receiver's email address. I can't see an envelope by Keith's name. I don't know how to help beyond that.

I also don't know, if I send an email through beerleg, if the recipient will see my return address; but I bet he won't.

email address

Keithwill@charter.net

I have the 4th edition...

Paraphrasing, it says the "legal" center of section is at the intersection of the straight lines; anything else is a property corner or legal occupation corner, whatever that means.

Personally I think that is bogus. Remember too, Brown's is not a primary source or even a secondary source. It is educational and has some credibility but is not effective where it contradicts established law.

The Manual itself says the County Surveyor and Private Surveyors who establish other corners not originally set are fulfilling a function contemplated by law. The Federal Government, in order to save money, only set some of the corners of its Patents but this does not mean that established monuments can never be the legal center of section.

Common law boundary principles are pretty clear; the established monument is the same as the monument called for in the Deed. Therefore if you have an established center of section, although it is not at the exact intersection it is still the center of section as called for by the Patents and subsequent Deeds.

This idea of separate property lines and boundary lines is an invention of Land Surveyors and there is no basis for it in law. The problem with pushing this idea of separate lines and corners is that you are advocating an unwritten transfer which is illegal outside of adverse possession. What has happened here in California is the Surveyor says the boundary is here and the occupation line is over there and there might be a property line over there so good luck using your secret unwritten rights code book, Your Honor. Then the Judge has to follow the rules so he determines the only way to accomplish this is Adverse Possession but the Surveyor says the boundary is over there so, oops, no payment of taxes. OK we will call it an exclusive Prescriptive Easement. So that goes to the Appellate Court and they AH AH AH-NO! No exclusive easement allowed because if it looks like a fee, and it walks like a fee, and it talks like a fee then you must be saying its a fee and you can't do that because no payment of taxes. If the Land Surveyor would just recognize the established boundary for what it is, then problem solved because in that case the common law says there is no unrealistic expectation that the actual boundary be exactly perfectly accurate.

Excellent post Dave!

The premise that there is the legal corner and a separate property corner is as bogus as they get.

This discussion is important and should be discussed in detail and especially from those who believe it!

But, I am going to be on the road for the next few days and probably cannot comment as I should.

Anyways, the subject needs to be flushed out and I for one am not taking Brown's opinion as final.

Have at it!!!

Keith

Just a hint

The Appeals Court Case of Rivers v Lozeau in Florida would be an excellent example of this bogus theory!

It could be explained by those who know about it.

Keith

Just a hint

What??
The property corner is at the corner of the properties and the "legal corner" is the legally established section/aliquot corner. They may be the same and they may be different.

You won't provide the text for the court case you cite after you made someone go through all of that work to provide you a citation? Geez, Keith, I have a feeling you ask people to provide you text because you think they won't, and then you ignore the text if they go through the trouble of getting it to you. Why don't you provide in detail what is wrong with the published opinion of some real boundary/legal experts instead of some vague reference to a court case you can't provide?

Okay, sorry. I don't mean to be hard on you, but the way you are going about this seems wrong to me. I have a high regard for you and you knowledge of the PLSS and the manual of instructions; but a lot of these private surveyors have to deal with private property rights after the properties have left the public domain. I am uncertain that you flippant answers are anything that many of us can hang our hats on. (Of course neither are mine I guess)

Just a hint

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I must say there have been many surveys I've seen, some even from Exam Board members at the time, that held this principle as sacred.

I've followed their lead in the past too when I was young and stupid.

Quite frankly, it's a Robillard treatise......

And Browns is still used as textbook in teaching the young in many college curricula.

But, to me, the major issue is really called for, versus uncalled for monuments. If you can find ancient documentation showing the center was set, that's all you need.

Just a hint

[msg=18457]Rivers[/msg] if you really want to dig into it again.

Just a hint

If the Deed calls for the center of section then the question of fact is, "where is the center of section located?" Monuments are better than measurements; if there is an established monument there then it is the Center, not just a mere property corner.

Sometimes the scrivener had enough experience to write "to the center of section as established by A.B. Charlie..."

Adam,

Sorry that you read my intentions this way,as you have not expressed my intentions accurately.

It is a fact right now that I will be traveling in the next few days to get home and wiill not be able to post as much as I would like to.

And that said, this whole fiasco of double corners has to be discussed in depth and I intend to do my part.

But, you may recall past threads of mine where I challenged those who believe in this bogus theory to come forward and explain the rationale and one place to start is the Rivers Appeals case in Florida. It represents to me, how bogus this whole concept is.

Now, do I have to explain their rationale or would it be better to hear from them?

I am not alone in this argument, ya know!

Keith

Just a hint

Marc,

Bingo.......who is the Brown's writer and who has been preaching that there is one and only C 1/4 cor and it is only at the exact intersection?

Keith