Section 6 is part of an 1884 original survey.
The entire township was independently resurveyed in 1915.
Only the township lines are based on original corners.
the question would be where to place the NE and SE corners of Lots 6 and 7.
The independent resurvey is very accurate, all caps with the exception of the S1/4 of 6 have been recovered and there are errors of less than 2 links in the lines.
Should Lots 6 and 7 be prorated using the independent resurvey plat.
the east line of the new Section 6 is a "Sectional Guide Meridian" the south line is a "Sectional Correction Line"
Original Plat:
Independent Resurvey Plat:
Don't you mean DEPENDENT resurvey?
It appears that those two lots are the subject of a patent. What does it say?
vern, post: 356516, member: 3436 wrote: It appears that those two lots are the subject of a patent. What does it say?
Lots 6 and 7, Section 6 and the E1/2SE1/4 Section 1
Nate The Surveyor, post: 356515, member: 291 wrote: Don't you mean DEPENDENT resurvey?
No for this plat it's an Independent Resurvey, there are two tracts (37 & 38) containing 320 acres and 1754.48 acres of Patent lands not segregated.
the two original lots add up to 74.48 acres which is reflected in the not segregated acreage.
Using the independent resurvey will shrink lots 6 and 7 by almost 1 acre.
Any idea why lots 1-5 were renumbered to 8-12, but 6 and 7 kept their original numbers? It appears that 6 and 7 were patented before the resurvey took place, so this might affect their location and therefore not be part of the independent resurvey. The locations of 6 and 7 might be tied to the original GLO survey.
Based on the two plats provided either they were crappy artists or those are different sections.
If the Lots 6 & 7 were alienated lands prior to the independent resurvey (IR) (patented under the original survey), their boundaries were not to be "moved" during the IR, they should have been located via dependant resurvey of the section prior to or during the IR.
I'd look at the notes, etc., of the IR, they should tell the whole story.
HE 0701 is probably a really good clue..........
J. Penry, post: 356532, member: 321 wrote: Any idea why lots 1-5 were renumbered to 8-12, but 6 and 7 kept their original numbers? It appears that 6 and 7 were patented before the resurvey took place, so this might affect their location and therefore not be part of the independent resurvey. The locations of 6 and 7 might be tied to the original GLO survey.
Yes, lots 8-12 were public lands, while 6 and 7 were patented lands which were part of the 1754.48 acres that consisted of private lands and Section 16 and 36, the independent resurvey had to leave the lots alone.
Brian Allen, post: 356536, member: 1333 wrote: If the Lots 6 & 7 were alienated lands prior to the independent resurvey (IR) (patented under the original survey), their boundaries were not to be "moved" during the IR, they should have been located via dependant resurvey of the section prior to or during the IR.
I'd look at the notes, etc., of the IR, they should tell the whole story.HE 0701 is probably a really good clue..........
Yes it's a patent issued in 1913 (154.48 acres), but they did not address it beyond is shown on the plat, they segregated two parcels which became Tracts 37 and 38, those were in the SE portion of the township.
You people sure survey funny out in the mountain states. Everything around here had one Government survey and called it good whether it was or not. We have nothing to compare with your circumstance.
Holy Cow, post: 356540, member: 50 wrote: You people sure survey funny out in the mountain states. Everything around here had one Government survey and called it good whether it was or not. We have nothing to compare with your circumstance.
Yes, we've got lots of these, but this one is giving me pause, protect the record 74.48 Ac for the HE tract, or protect the 80Ac E1/2SW1/4 shown on the resurvey.
I went and prorated two corners in my drawing, then started thinking,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I've got till monday to ponder it.
My inclination is to prorate using the independent resurvey which creates 73.56Ac for Lots 6 and 7.
Why does the topography of each plat appear to be depicted so very differently? Are you sure these are even of the same sections in the same townships/ranges?
Moe,
I'm assuming the west and north boundaries of Sec 6 were retracements of the original twp/range lines, what happened on the south and east boundaries, especially at the S1/4 and E1/4?
What I guess I'm asking, is there enough original evidence to essentially do a section breakdown using the original plat and monuments thereof? This is what the GLO probably should have done to protect the original lots 6 & 7. It sure would have helped if the IR actually retraced and monumented the alienated lots.
It may be a stupid question, but what is the HE 0701?
I would think that is Homestead Entry number 701.
Brian Allen, post: 356546, member: 1333 wrote: Moe,
I'm assuming the west and north boundaries of Sec 6 were retracements of the original twp/range lines, what happened on the south and east boundaries, especially at the S1/4 and E1/4?
What I guess I'm asking, is there enough original evidence to essentially do a section breakdown using the original plat and monuments thereof? This is what the GLO probably should have done to protect the original lots 6 & 7. It sure would have helped if the IR actually retraced and monumented the alienated lots.
It may be a stupid question, but what is the HE 0701?
Homestead Entry number
the lines are resurveyed as best they could around the township, inside the township its all new lines, there is no evidence of the original available inside the township except for Tracts 37-38.
astrodanco, post: 356545, member: 7558 wrote: Why does the topography of each plat appear to be depicted so very differently? Are you sure these are even of the same sections in the same townships/ranges?
The topo on those old quads was a guess at best, the newer ones are more accurate
Without telling a long story, which could be wrong...
The patent was issued against the original plat so that plat will dictate the positions of the corners of the lots. I would use the parenthetical distances from section 6 on the original plat to prorate the positions of lots 6 and 7.
MightyMoe, post: 356556, member: 700 wrote: The topo on those old quads was a guess at best, the newer ones are more accurate
You would think the drainage and road crossings would be more similar though. I also wonder what the fences shown means.
I think I would sub-divide the Section using the Re-Survey plat, then hold the East to West 1/4 Section line and the South line of the Section, then use the acreage from the Original plat for the 2 lots in question to determine how for to slide the East line of the lots.
vern, post: 356659, member: 3436 wrote: You would think the drainage and road crossings would be more similar though. I also wonder what the fences shown means.
Generally, and I mean very generally, these townships were basically just wild guesses when it came to topo, then considering that the independent resurvey was necessary it may be that not much if anything was originally surveyed in the township.
They probably didn't really survey the drainages, and I doubt that many roads were there in 1884.
The fences look like pasture fences, most of the lands were shared pastures being federal at the time. There were huge ranches out there, measured in hundreds of square miles and they ran cattle on the open ranges.