Here is a summary of this situation in T1S, R1W, Humboldt Meridian:
1882 Original survey by Haughn
1886 Investigation by GLO resulted in rejection of his survey. Note that he set some corners in this township, but apparently not all corners
1888 Patent in Section 10
1889 "New Survey" by GLO surveyor Smith
1890 Patent in Section 9
1891 Smith plat approved
A local superior court ruled that the 1888 patent had to be based on the Haughn plat, even though his survey had been rejected in 1886.
The question is now regarding the 1890 patent. Since the Smith plat had not been approved, would the 1890 patent be per the Haughn survey, even though rejected OR would it be based on the 1889 survey by Smith since his survey was done on the ground, even though his survey would not be approved until the following year.
Does anyone know of any court decision in this situation?
Are the 1890 patent or the 1891 plat affected by the 1889 resurvey? It's not clear if any part of the 1882 survey was accepted.
Besides all of that what are the landowners out there occupying?
That's a great question. If the rejected survey was used for the patents, there should be a reference on the next one for those lands and when it's pulled up that's what's on the plat. There are 3527 acres "accepted" from the original survey and basically 19,541 added. In note 2 the found corners and ties are listed. Also note the lottings and non lottings in certain sections. They might be treated somewhat like tracts are for an Independent Resurvey. Patents can be tricky, I'd be sure there aren't any reissued after the 82 one.
Thank you for the review and comments. The 1882 survey was accepted and the plat based on that survey, but the GLO investigation resulted in a rejection of the plat (and thus survey) in 1886. The 1882 surveyor did set some corners, which the 1889 survey found. The difference in positions is over 10 chains.
The 1891 plat is based on the 1889 survey. The question is regarding the 1890 patent. Could a patent be based on a GLO survey that had been surveyed on the ground but not yet approved and the plat prepared, or would the 1890 patent be based on the only GLO plat available (1882), even though it had been rejected?
The 1891 plat does not reference the lands that had been previously patented. There were 3257 acres accepted from another GLO survey in a different part of the township, which does not impact this problem.
Occupation is inconsistent. These lands are a combination of grazing and timberlands.