Today, while researching the north 1/4 corner of section 20, I found that in the notes, the surveyor run north between sections 19 and 20, setting the west 1/4 corner at 40 chs, the northwest corner of 20 at 80 chs. They then run a random line east between 17 and 20 and at 40.00 chs they set the temp. 1/4 corner, and at 79.86 chs, intersect the line at 30 lks south of the NE corner of 20; Then they ran S 89-49 W on true line and at 40.00 chs set the 1/4 corner. At 79.86 chs, they hit the NW corner of 20.
Assuming NO EVIDENCE exists, and a proportion is necessary, where would you place the N 1/4 corner: 1)at midpoint or 2)at a proportional 40 chs from the NE corner of 20?
For reference, this is section 20, T13S, R40E, Boise Meridian
Proportioned to the record and not at mid point.
It is interesting!
Have you read the notes of other east-west 1/4 cors. that this surveyor set?
I have to assume that the same field procedures were used in all east-west lines with the 1/4 temp. cor. being moved to the true position and the monument set.
I am also assuming that there is a mistake in the distances reported in the field notes and actually it was not set at 40 chains.
But that is assumptions on my part and you do have the written record to go by, which would mean at proportion.
I think you can look at as there is an obvious mistake, either in field or in field notes and whichever way you decide to go; it would be difficult to argue against your judgement.
Any history of other 1/4 cors. and how they were set will help your judgement.
Keith
Brian,
He actually ran true on S89-47'W according to his notes; just a typo on your part. If you look at the plat; he is showing no return on the distance which would indicate 80 chains.
Interesting case, I would lean toward the proportioning due to the notes, but the plat must be considered.
Kurt
Is this a BLM resurvey or the original GLO survey?
The plat for the original shows a different bearing and no dimension on the north line as Kurt shows in his post.
I know that the website will often have the original plats and not the later resuveys and when I looked it just showed the 1874 survey. If it's a later survey it would help to see the plat which might reinforce the notes.
I should have looked farther. The notes are there and they do show the stone set at 40 chains S89degs47'W from the NE corner. Because the plat does not show the chains you have to decide between the two.
Another oddity, on the 1873 plat, notice there are no distance returns for the north boundary lines of sections 20 thru 24. All the notes have the distances reported, and with the exception of north line of section 20, the 1/4 cors were set at midpoint (except the west tier). I did find one other distance in the notes that was originally written as "40.00" chs, but was obviously overwritten/corrected to "40.35" chs (n. bndry of section 24).
I'm headed out to try and find the "slate stone, 15" x 7" x 6" at the N1/4. I've already found the stones at the NW cor, S1/4 & SE cor of sec 20, the NE cor of 21, and the E1/4 of 17 (In section 20, the SW cor & W1/4 are local perpetuations, and the NE cor and E1/4 fall in large CRP fields and are long gone). Maybe the Gods will smile again and there will be one less proportion in this area, who knows?
Good luck Brian and it seems as though the draftsman was not talking to the surveyor and each had different facts?
Keith
What copy of plat and notes everybody working from, the Original, Duplicate, or maybe even a Triplicate? Might be worth your while to look up other versions to validate record.
You are absolutely right about that William.
Other copies of the plats may be different?
