Proportioned corner-what is it?

it is a perpetuated original corner. As stated in the BLM manual of surveying instructions.

In law it is the position of the original corner. It is most likely (highly improbable that all the original distances were accurate) not really in the original position. But if there is no other evidence then the rules dictate how it is to be established.

So, in my opinion the law is that it is the same as the original corner.

Jerry

Thanks.

> What is it (in law)?

It's a restoration of the corner location. When established by the BLM on Federal land, it may be legally binding. When established on non-Federal land, it can be superseded by superior evidence of the original location.

It's a rule of equity. If all evidence is lost then simply use the original record, by the math to, split the distance by proportion (apply the rule of equity to the landowners). It's a good rule when applied where it should be. The flip side is the simplicity to solve a complex and challenging problem quickly and is addicting. I mean, why hunt all that evidence when a few key stokes on the calculator gets you down the road in a flash. Hopefully we are going to turn the corner on the abuse of proportioning "lost" corners. The damage already done is massive and has not been equitable.

Typically what we see in Forest work is there is a sampling of original corners. I have one in particular set by DP in 1963 from nearby existent corners. I think the Surveyor was diligent in searching for corners but some have just been logged out.

Unfortunately the GLO surveyors mainly called the major creeks but not the minor ravines near the corners and which are generally fairly numerous along the lines.

I would call the concrete monument set by DP in 1963 the best available evidence of the Section corner.

when I worked for the blm, I always heard and referred to proportioning as a restoration of a lost corner. And perpetuation or best available evidence weren't terms normally associated with proportioned positions, but were more reserved for when there was some type of evidence that preserved the original position.

Set xxxx as perpetuation of lost corner, by dbl. ppn. method.

I'm with Clearcut. "Best available evidence" implies a corner solution based on local original evidence, while a proportioned position is really a solution of last resort (you've given up on finding a better solution), and definitely not where the original corner was.

It's not an original corner, it's not a corner set by local evidence, nor is it perpetuating original evidence. It's a dependent resurvey, dependent on found controlling evidence, using that evidence and DPM to find the position as instructed by the Manual for a new corner position. So, the simplest definition of proportioning of any type is that proportioning is a dependent resurvey.
jud

The proportioned corner? Why, that's the infamous "corner-monument-guaranteed-to-not-be-in-the-original-position corner"; as I believe the technical term for it is.

I have a philosophy that there is nearly no circumstance that has absolutely no evidence of the original monument. If there are no boundaries subordinate to that section corner, and no fences and nothing else, well, maybe then. But if there are any subordinate properties that have the section corner as one of its corners, or even call to the corner, I would rather reestablish it by those subordinate corner locations.

If there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and there are no secondary properties, then okay...I guess you proportion it in. It doesn't matter too much how precise it is set, since there are not boundaries to it, and it takes on all of the qualities of an original corner. Call it the corner that the original was designated as.

(Okay, that wasn't the question. I don't know about a legal term for it)