Thanks Kevin
Thanks Loyal.
Interesting PLSS phenomenon you mention there 🙂
Never a shortage of complexities in this "simple system" is there?
Since there is no evidence of the original corner monument, and the road is there for possible evidence of an obliterated corner, is it not possible that the road is a better established boundary line?
I am not keen on the road as-built
If the quarter corner had been found firmly set by the county surveyor I would bite on this and hold the road for the latitude of the quarter corner. However, the road record clearly states he found the stone laying loose on the ground. I wouldn't hold or proportion against a disturbed corner.
The section line is not called for as the centerline of the road in this location or by calls to the line or by calls to quarter or section corners. It is my opinion that if the county surveyor had intended the road centerline to be coincident with the section line in this area he would have called it as such in his surveyor's report.
I suspect this "road" may have already been in use in this area and corners were already obliterated or lost completely by the time the county surveyor showed up. Simply put those pesky stones ain't too great for wagon wheels. Since the county surveyor wasn't charged with retracing the sections lines along the course of this road he begins somewhere with known corners to define the location of his road. He then surveys the course of the road tying the course to found corners when and where he can. Absent the quarter corners or section corners the county surveyor was running on his own bearing. I imagine his own bearing to be his best attempt to re-run the section lines and find additional corners. I believe his practice of calling the falling to other public land corners in other parts of this road survey and others supports this theory. Obviously he also changed his bearing where necessary to make the grade work in difficult terrain.
I just can't see making the leap to...
1)holding the location of a disturbed stone
2)or holding the as-built centerline of a modern road as evidence of the location of the original undisturbed one quarter corner.
In my opinion the as-built centerline of this road is the best available evidence of the position of a disturbed quarter corner circa 1906.
I would say the as-built centerline of the road is evidence of the road alignment.
Sometimes a road is just a road. 🙂
That is also true!
Like I said, set it at midpoint. The Manual in effect at the time states:
"Any discrepancy, arising either from a change in the magnetic variation or a difference in measurement, is to be carefully noted in the field notes"
and
"Method of Subdividing
...Establishing the corner of sections 23,24,25,26 .. Then run due east for the corner of sections 24 and 25 in east boundary; setting temporary quarter section post at forty chains; correcting back and establishing permanent quarter section corner at the EQUIDISTANT point on the true line, in the manner directed on the line between sections 25 and 36."
Do the notes indicate a discrepancy from the change of EQUIDISTANT?
B-)
Pablo
Let me launch this and see how it floats...
The law generally instructs us to work from specific to general.
I would call the published field notes the specific and I would call the Instructions more general.
Therefore I think it is best to conform to the field notes where there is a conflict.
Let me launch this and see how it floats...
The field notes should be the better evidence of where the monument was set than the instructions.
However, acknowledging the field notes may have an error. We would need evidence of the error, one being as Loyal pointed out the rest of the east-west lines in that tier are equal splits in conjunction with the instructions.
So I can see it both ways. Occum's razor seems to favor using the field notes, though.
I'm with the midpoint crowd.
The field notes are one piece of information. Another is the plat. Does it show a break in the distance at the 1/4?
If not then the plat is telling you the midpoint is where the 1/4 is set. If there is some conflict between the plat and the notes which would you use?
The plat is what was used to convey property.
I would think the field notes, being more specific, would govern over the plat although the contrary case probably could be shown.
I may be wrong about that though.
If in fact the plat does not show half mile distances, then the corner is at midpoint, by the plat. The crew knows that it is at midpoint and set it there.
Does the Plat govern over the field notes in case of conflicts?
Dave,
Not necessarily. There are court cases going both ways and if it is obvious which one is right, it wins!
It is a good argument though in a case like this, if the plat does not show the half mile distances as being different, then the intent is to have the 1/4 cor. at midpoint, which would be normal.
In this case the field notes do not follow the plat, or vice versus-----if there are no half mile distances on the plat. Hence an error on one or the other.
Matter of fact, we have not seen the plat!
1 link would probably be de minimus so either way I wouldn't expect much controversy.
Kevin – 1906 - this must have been W.R. McFarland? He seemed to make somewhat more detailed calls in his road survey notes than Fred Rice, George Young or Knox Huston. We’ve even found where McFarland blazed and scribed bearing trees to reference mile markers. From what I’ve seen of their work none of those other cats did. A McFarland B.T. is how we found the 6 M stone on Horner Road.
Out of curiosity, does his map accompanying the survey notes indicate this point on the road as “1/4 Cor.”? If so, I’d be under the impression that all he needed to do was reset the stone upright to correct its looseness but he just failed to describe his rehabilitation efforts in the notes (none of these guys were very verbose in their notes). By saying it was found loose on the ground would not necessarily discount it if elsewhere the 1/4 is shown as a point on his survey.
I am in the field on another job for a couple of days. I will post plat and road survey when I get a chance.
The county surveyor in question was C. A. Graves.
No trees as this survey is North of Madras on the Agency Plains. Even if there were almost all have been cut down by now. Most trees up there are willows planted by farm houses by the settlers.
The corner in question is not specifically marked "1/4 COR" on the map accompanying the surveyors report.
I will post the records later this week. Marking and posting line out by Three Rivers this week.
Hey, in my day, we would not think about a link, but now in the expert measuring days, an inch or so makes some reject monuments.
Just an update for any who care to know...
We decided after some consultation with another surveyor of high esteem that the 1/4 COR was in place when discovered during the road survey. So we proportioned the departures at midpoint and held the centerline of the as-built road to control the latitude of the corner.
Thanks to all.
