Here's one that is making me scratch my head...but I haven't looked in the Manual yet:
Original Survey 1895:
"From the corner common to Sec. 2,3,10 & 11 North on a random line...40 chs. set temp 1/4 C.....80.00 chs. intersect north line of township 30 links east of corner common to sec.2 & 3. "
He then chains back 40 chs. on a 'true' line and sets permanent 1/4 cor. 15 lks. west of temp corner. OK, cool...
Fast forward 117 years. No original corners or accessories. There's a pin at the NW Cor. of sec. 2 and one at the SW Cor.- they fit the county roads...but they're almost 5340' apart. Here's the head scratcher: There is a "1/4 line" fence extending west into Sec. 3 (no corners found, just fence), but it's 2640' south of the corner common to 2 & 3. That leaves the west line of the SW/4 of 2 almost 2700'.
Disregarding the fence, where would you think the 1/4 cor. should be?
> Disregarding the fence, where would you think the 1/4 cor. should be?
I think it should be where the original surveyor set it....;-)
At first blush:-$ , it looks like he's got 1 too many chains in there, probably happened in the south half of the line.
Disregarding the fence, where would you think the 1/4 cor. should be?
Sorry, but I just can't disregard a fence that fits record from a corner.
I understand your sentiment.
I guess what is digging in my gizzard is that would place the north half of the mile at a standard 40 chs. and then the excess (almost 41 chs.)would be placed in the south half.
That just seems to run against the grain.
The E-W twp. line is recoverable. We've gone a mile east and two and a half west. It seems to be the real deal. I agree that someone dropped a chain...just where do you put it?
I'd measure section corners going south all the way to the south township line. Then I'd have an idea of the average chain length. I've found a lot of PLSS stuff long, seems it wasn't uncommon for them to add a link distance to the chain. 5340 works out near the extra link added.
Working on one today. Got one odd section corner in 5 miles. All are long except one section that is extra long and the next one short. I shoot a rebar with a loose stone nearby that fits the GLO description. I inverse back to a real nice original stone 1 mile north. Data collector reads out 5280 and change. So the south line is 5401 feet and the north is 5280. All chained the same day by the GLO. The average for the whole 5 miles is 5319. I ain't buying it!
Something I've noticed around here in Oklahoma:
They used two chains. The one they used to chain north and south musta been the good one. I think the one they used to chain east and west was a stretch of rope..;-)
Sometimes a fence is just a fence, then sometimes a fence is placed where the landowners found an old monument and it later got destroyed. And when the fence is 2640 from a corner (that corner is not original?) then it is evidence of at least someone's idea of the 1/4.
I'm not saying it has to be accepted, but prorating always bothers me too.
Moe to the rescue
This kind of stuff happens all the time where I survey. For the sake of arguement let's read the notes as written. The fence is exactly where the notes say it is when they returned on the true line 40 chains. Why fight it?
Now we know when they chained on the random they didn't intersect the TWP line at 80 chains, don't we. We know that's not correct. BUT, if they did what they said they did and chained back 40 the corner is where they set it.
You can't disregard the fence. It's evidence that verifies the notes. Was it a crappy original survey? Yes. Can you fix it now? No. You can do a retracement.
> Sometimes a fence is just a fence, then sometimes a fence is placed where the landowners found an old monument and it later got destroyed. And when the fence is 2640 from a corner (that corner is not original?) then it is evidence of at least someone's idea of the 1/4.
>
> I'm not saying it has to be accepted, but prorating always bothers me too.
Agreed. Apportionment only applies when there is no better evidence. What's the best available evidence when you can't find the original monument or direct evidence of its former position? A fence provides evidence; the distance of 2640 corroborates the location of the fence relative to the original survey notes. Evidence of use and occupation carries a presumption of good faith and you don't have any evidence that would tell you the fence was located by fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that would overcome the presumption.
I don't see any other choice available. Accept the fence as the best available evidence of the corner perpetuation and establishment. Sometimes a fence is just a fence. Most often, however, it's the best available evidence of the corner.
JBS
I'm thinking it might have been stubbed from the north if the deputy also did the township line or, more likely, the township to the north. Not the stated procedure, but there it is.
Don
I see several places to look here. One if the deputy surveyor set the 1/4 cor at 40 chains heading north and then tied into the township line at 80 chains 30 links east why would he chain back 40 chains and on true line? all he had to do was correct the position of the temporary 1/4 cor. and move it over to the west 9.9'. Did the deputy surveyor actually close to the north? Did the deputy move the 1/4 cor. in the wrong direction 9.9' east? Is the existing fence barbed wire? If so barbed wire is sold in rolls by the rod. 80 rods to a roll (1320') two rolls you have 2640' So it would fit the distance from the north. As you stated did he drop a chain measurement. Are there any topo calls? Did the deputy surveyor use stadia measurements and made a mistake?. I would try to get a chaining factor as to base my measurements upon So I would look at 40 chains north from the cor. common to 2,3,10, & 11 and on line to the cor 2,3. I would look 9.9'east to the temp. position in case he never reset the corner and 19.8' east in case he went the wrong way with his correction. Just some fuel for thought.
Maybe the fence crew did not find the 1/4 corner and held 40 ch south.
Lots of farmers stubbed in their quarter and 40 lines. They were surveying. There used to be lots of 100 link chains hanging in the tool shed.
I was thinking the same thing.
The Field Notes are not really Field Notes; I think of them as more of a narrative Record of Survey.
How they actually did the Survey could be quite a bit different, for example, measuring from known control on the north and running south 40 chains and the rest is fictional.
Not having surveyed in Oklahoma my perspective is coming from the northwest. First, I assume the statement about intersecting the township line really should have been intersected east of the section corner for 34 & 35. No biggy. Second, what do the section lines between 1 & 2, 3 &4, 4 & 5, and 5 & 6 look like? Are they all about a chain long? Are there any original 1/4 corners on those line that indicate these lines were stubbed from the north? Are the positions and ages of the roads such that they were probably built when original corners could have been found? What is the reputation of the original surveyor? Did he have a habit of stubbing? Are there any physical terrain features that might have encouraged stubbing from the township line?
Evelyn
