Under one of the early schemes they were only going to run the Township boundaries, no interior Section corners. Thank Gawd we dodged that bullet, imagine what a mess that would've been.
hillsidesurveyor, post: 351606, member: 7292 wrote: Linebender,
Reviewing this very seminar is the reason I started this post.
In the end I think it comes down to the first surveyor vs. the original surveyor theory. One way of thinking being that the first surveyor to breakdown the section and have his work relied upon by adjacent owners is the original surveyor. The other way of thinking being that since the original government surveyors didn't set the interior section corners that any subsequent surveyor that comes along and sets an interior section corner is merely setting the corner as close as he can to the true corner, but the true corner is always the protracted intersections.
I agree with the prior of the two, but many others adhere to the latter of the two.
For those that agree with the latter of the two theories outlined, here is another 2009 manual quote to ponder:
3-137: "The protracted position of the legal subdivision corner on the survey plat is merely the first step in fixing the position of a corner. The corner position is fixed by the running and marking of the lines."
So this was 1927. What has occurred in the past 90 years since in the MN court system? The court stated "The present trouble, taking the evidence just as it is, is that there is no definitely located true center of the section." This includes the stone that was relied on and the monument set by the rule 42 ft east of the stone. If the MN court doesn't accept the first monument to mark the corner or a monument set by rule what have they accepted since 1927? They appear to be implying adverse possession or practical location if shown could prevail. I think I would look at other cases since this one as it applies to my practice. This case alone taken to an extreme would imply a protracted corner cannot ever be definitely located. This decision reverses an order denying a new trial. So was there a new trial or did they settle? It's like the court was saying don't bother us with fence building expense cases. Figure this out between you and leave us out of it.
linebender, post: 351823, member: 449 wrote: So this was 1927. What has occurred in the past 90 years since in the MN court system? The court stated "The present trouble, taking the evidence just as it is, is that there is no definitely located true center of the section." This includes the stone that was relied on and the monument set by the rule 42 ft east of the stone. If the MN court doesn't accept the first monument to mark the corner or a monument set by rule what have they accepted since 1927? They appear to be implying adverse possession or practical location if shown could prevail. I think I would look at other cases since this one as it applies to my practice. This case alone taken to an extreme would imply a protracted corner cannot ever be definitely located. This decision reverses an order denying a new trial. So was there a new trial or did they settle? It's like the court was saying don't bother us with fence building expense cases. Figure this out between you and leave us out of it.
So I looked into that case a bit further. It doesn't appear to have ever been cited since it was decided. If you read it carefully you will see that the court sent it back for trial to determine the extent of Lunz title. Reading between the lines a bit, the lower court determined the line to be from the stone set for the quarter corner on the north in 1872 by gov. surveyors to the stone set "in a surveyor like fashion" in 1872 for the center of section (rejected by one surveyor but accepted by the next). But, what they want to see is the mathematical intersection to determine how it relates. Seems the lower court is saying adverse possession, practical location, something like that. But the lower court decision is not published so you would have to find it in the local court records. Essentially though, the line between original stones was determined the true line, and the 1872 "surveyor like" stone the center of section.
I see why there are conflicting opinions of surveyors in MN. There are no cases (that I found) clearly addressing the center of section problem since the early 20th century (and none ever that are really on the point we are discussing) and there has been movement in the courts since that time on related issues. Lunz is quoting from a case that's quite different in fact. That case involved a plat made subsequent to the government plat which changed the configuration and parties wanted to claim what was shown on the government plat. In addition, Lunz is using the argument from a couple of cases that no extrinsic evidence is allowed to alter intent when the description is clear, so the presumption is the conveyance is intended to convey by government survey methods. But that doesn't address the problem because all lines are presumed so, but lots and lots of MN cases recognizing they were laid out in error and mistake, but the original stakeout holds. I see nothing in Lunz or the one or two cases it cites from earlier that says the original stake out of the center of section can't be held as the true line (although I admit it is easy to think that from the cases).
Part of the problem seems to stem from the Title Registration system in MN. The courts don't want to vary the clear intent of the deed for title purposes. But even clearly worded deeds have a location problem when dealing with old transactions. But, a survey is NOT required in the MN registration process, so how can the line be anywhere but the true intersection per gov. methods, but how can the quarters be anywhere else either? It's a circular argument, and a fairly fascinating twist brought about by a Torrens like system. And it may be the reason acquiescence is said to change title in MN, unlike many other states. Could be that over the years it has been decided that you must get the intersection and then resolve all other evidence as a change in title via adverse possession, express or implied agreement, or estoppel. That's the picture I'm starting to get for MN.
If you get into court on this in MN you will be needing some citations from other states that have been mentioned in this thread, unless MN truly is unique as mentioned above.