Section 36 is one messed up section! Very well written article. One million attaboys are awarded for a job well done.
You may not have seen my article regarding Section 6. A section I have always found to be far more problematic.
Of course my article was published in Lurid Detective Tales and was not as widely noticed by the surveying community, but it was, if I may say so, well received by those that happened upon it.
Don
I just finished the article and I agree with the Cow that's very well written and quite interesting.
One thing that wasn't reported as being brought up by any of the McShane Corner supporters is that it is "almost" 40 chains and "almost" east of the accepted NW corner of Section 36. That would seem to be an argument for accepting it. I mean if you're going to buy the equally questionable NW corner, why not accept the McShane Corner as being stubbed from it at some point in the past? Stubbing, as we all know, was a common if not legitimate practice.
Don
I think this is the cite:
McShane v. Murray, 184 NW 147 - 1921
My favorite Section is Section 7, T17N, R16W, M.D.M. See State of California v. Thompson, 22 Cal. App. 3d 368. Note the Appellate Opinion bears no resemblance to the Section today.
I'm not surprised the State lost the McShane case, they usually do. If it had neen the other way around the Court would've said there is insufficient evidence to support the monument but I'm just being cynical now.
