There is a Section 1 in Bossier Parish Louisiana, T22N, R12W, with GLO original survey dimensions (in chains) being N-80.00, E-80.00, S-79.81 and W-80.06. Total of 639.48 acres per survey. No resurveys. Quarter quarter sections were all patented at or close to 40 acres each. I have a 1988 plat of survey (not certified or recorded) of this section showing N-S quarter quarter measurements of 1350 feet each (for a total N-S section dimension of 5400 feet). How can this be possible? Thanks for your help.
How can it be possible? The short answer is anything is possible...?ÿ
The GLO survey for this township was done in 1837.?ÿ Newer survey measurements (from your 1988 plat, assuming the info on it is correct) are NEVER going to precisely match a survey done 150 years prior.?ÿ 30 ft per quarter mile does seem to be more excess than average, but it is within reason.
What about this section and their differing reported measurements has gotten your interest?
It looks like the patent areas for the quarter quarters were calculated as 1/16 of the official area of the entire section, so there were no implied lots.?ÿ
Having no experience in LA I cant tell you how that happened but these are a few ideas and questions I would ask.?ÿ
First of all it would not be unusual for 1838 survey to miss a measurement by 120' . Is this difficult country to cross? Requiring offsets or trig measurements??ÿ That would increase the likelihood of bad measurements.?ÿ
Perhaps they lost two chains in their count.
Do you have the notes? They may hold the answer.
All the error in in the N-S measurement would have been put in this section. The sections to the West were reported as being long, longer than 5400'. This fact, and the fact that this section may actually be long too, is a little suspicious. The lines in this section closing on the North boundary may have never actually been run, or the numbers may have been fabricated to meet the surveyor's requirements for accuracy on the Range line.?ÿ
Maybe the 1988 surveyor screwed up. Is it normal there to have an survey that is not "certified" or recorded in 1988? Have others accepted the 1988 survey?
There are many other possibilities too....
Nothing unusual about that. The record measurements are more of a suggestion.
My interest...
I have property...deed description from patent through subsequent conveyances - ??SW4 of NE4, S1, T22N, R12W?. I need to know where my north property line is located.
I commissioned the 1988 survey mentioned in my initial post showing 1350?? from the north section line to my north property line. The surveyor is deceased and I have no access to his field notes.
I have found (recorded) a 1958 survey of the east adjoining properties showing a 1320?? interval.
A person wanting to purchase access running from my NE corner to his property in the SE4 of NE4 has produced surveys by different surveyors:
First surveyor ?? shows roughly 1350?? from N section line to my N property line apparently finding my NE corner monument previously set. He was apparently retracing my 1988 survey.
Second surveyor - surveyor ignored the NE corner monument previously set and set a new NE corner monument, the best I can figure, at 1416?? from the north section line. Imagine that!
GLO survey field notes are attached (zipped).?ÿ Thanks for your interest.
Assuming the retracing Surveyor found that there is actually 2700' from the quarter section corner to the section corner as originally monumented then the one-sixteenth corner would be set in the middle at 1350' except to say you are in section 1 which normally have 12 regular "40s" and four government lots across the north tier. However your Plat doesn't show lots or any interior sixteenth lines. I'm not sure how that is handled in Louisiana.
you don't own a 40 acre parcel; what you own is an aliquot part of a section, that is one-sixteenth of the entire section. All the original patentees in a section stood on an equal proportional footing, you all share any excess or deficiency proportional to your overall share of the section. But what I have written here is not quite accurate because the procedure for dividing up the section does not necessarily result in equal shares. The procedure is known as midpoint protraction. ?ÿ19th century Surveyors had no practical way of accurately measuring areas over a large area so they measured a line and divided by two, much easier. At least that is what they were supposed to do but they often stubbed in, that is run in a cardinal direction what was assumed to be half the distance from the (inaccurate) record.
The official field notes are really a work of fiction. They didn't lay out the sections that way. Somehow the notes always show they were within limits although that is doubtful when we find 200' discrepancies in lines (to be fair the limits were unrealistic given the time constraints in mountainous terrain or just plain wilderness).
The official field notes are really a work of fiction. They didn't lay out the sections that way. Somehow the notes always show they were within limits although that is doubtful when we find 200' discrepancies in lines (to be fair the limits were unrealistic given the time constraints in mountainous terrain or just plain wilderness).
That's an overly broad statement. There certainly are many townships with fictitious notes, but there are also many that were faithfully done.
In my experience the faithfull notes far out number the fictitious, although if practicing in one particular area you may find the reverse is true .?ÿ
In my area the townships were divided into sections in the most common way where the error was thrown against the north line of sections 1-6 and the west line of sections 6,7,18,19,30 & 31. ?ÿThus most section 1 layouts would have lots along the north approximate quarter mile. ?ÿActual measurements might be 200 feet plus/minus of the standard 1320. ?ÿLot 1 would be in the northeast corner with lots 2,3 &4 being in the order to the west with lot 4 being in the northwest corner of the section.
However, that may or may not have been the practice where the tract in the original post is located.
We get some entertaining numbering when a river with associated lots falls in a section with standard lots. ?ÿA similar situation happens here when an indian boundary line crosses a section that would already be lotted due to a river or the standard circumstance.
In my area the townships were divided into sections in the most common way where the error was thrown against the north line of sections 1-6 and the west line of sections 6,7,18,19,30 & 31. ?ÿThus most section 1 layouts would have lots along the north approximate quarter mile. ?ÿActual measurements might be 200 feet plus/minus of the standard 1320. ?ÿLot 1 would be in the northeast corner with lots 2,3 &4 being in the order to the west with lot 4 being in the northwest corner of the section.
However, that may or may not have been the practice where the tract in the original post is located.
We get some entertaining numbering when a river with associated lots falls in a section with standard lots. ?ÿA similar situation happens here when an indian boundary line crosses a section that would already be lotted due to a river or the standard circumstance.
Generally the 1830's surveys put the error in the northern tier too, but the lot system didn't become standard till the 1850's or 60's. These surveys just had large or small aliqout parts in the northern tier. My hypothesis is that in this situation the instructions to the surveyor to place the error in the northern tier conflicted with the requirements for a standard range line, resulting in some fictitious distances being reported in order to get paid.?ÿ
I don't mean to say they weren't there but in the intermountain west they didn't Survey it like the Notes. One of the County Surveyors has the actual field notes because the Deputy was also the County surveyor. What he did is nothing like the official "field" notes, he mostly spun the corners in with radial stadia methods and he was pretty accurate.
in another case James Woods got the north quarter and northeast corner 900' too far west on a completion survey. I'm pretty sure he didn't run north out of the east quarter like the notes say. Most likely he paced east from the northwest corner because he got the northing pretty good then he accurately chained east from the north quarter corner because his call to two deep gulches are pretty good. ?ÿI'm thinking he sped up the work using questionable methods.
The prescribed methods may work on a plain but in the mountains they were impractical. I've seen cases where instead of running over a precipitous knife edge rock mountain they cheated the line around one way or the other, it can be seen on the quad map. The GLO office said, yes go run straight down the cliff, it's all flat on the map.
i know of one township in the mountains where no one has ever found an original internal corner but mostly they set at least some of them. There is one half mile we did this summer, the first half mile in the survey and it is N20W but the rest of the lines are fairly close to cardinal. I don't think they ever ran that line like they said they did. The crew probably did both the township boundary and internal corners in one survey unlike the notes which indicate two surveys. ?ÿExcept the east-west township line was done earlier, it has 5 and 6 chain discrepancies per half mile, I don't think the later deputy realized that when he laid out the grid from the south and west. All the corners are out there, typical of mountainous California, the corners are in and they did amazing work sometimes but from the odd busts you can tell they didn't do it like the notes indicate. I think of the notes as being a narrative record of Survey cooked up in the office, not a record of what happened in the field.
I think your characterization is a bit broad. Most of the time I find myself following western GLO Surveyors that made incredible efforts to follow the instructions given. Yes there are oddball area (and Surveyors) but its definitely a small percentage where I work.
I don't mean to say they weren't there but in the intermountain west they didn't Survey it like the Notes. One of the County Surveyors has the actual field notes because the Deputy was also the County surveyor. What he did is nothing like the official "field" notes, he mostly spun the corners in with radial stadia methods and he was pretty accurate.
in another case James Woods got the north quarter and northeast corner 900' too far west on a completion survey. I'm pretty sure he didn't run north out of the east quarter like the notes say. Most likely he paced east from the northwest corner because he got the northing pretty good then he accurately chained east from the north quarter corner because his call to two deep gulches are pretty good. ?ÿI'm thinking he sped up the work using questionable methods.
The prescribed methods may work on a plain but in the mountains they were impractical. I've seen cases where instead of running over a precipitous knife edge rock mountain they cheated the line around one way or the other, it can be seen on the quad map. The GLO office said, yes go run straight down the cliff, it's all flat on the map.
i know of one township in the mountains where no one has ever found an original internal corner but mostly they set at least some of them. There is one half mile we did this summer, the first half mile in the survey and it is N20W but the rest of the lines are fairly close to cardinal. I don't think they ever ran that line like they said they did. The crew probably did both the township boundary and internal corners in one survey unlike the notes which indicate two surveys. ?ÿExcept the east-west township line was done earlier, it has 5 and 6 chain discrepancies per half mile, I don't think the later deputy realized that when he laid out the grid from the south and west. All the corners are out there, typical of mountainous California, the corners are in and they did amazing work sometimes but from the odd busts you can tell they didn't do it like the notes indicate. I think of the notes as being a narrative record of Survey cooked up in the office, not a record of what happened in the field.
Sounds like you have had a lot of bad luck, but I assure you there are many honestly surveyed mountain townships out there.?ÿ
It's a mixed bag, but even well surveyed townships can get wonky.
Then there are all the independent resurveys that were executed, they weren't done for fun, the patentees couldn't recover much or any evidence of the original surveys.
They weren't isolated to mountainous areas either. There are many strange townships out in the plains. T53N, R69W 6th is one of those, but hardly the only one. There is the shortcut method,?ÿthe survey only?ÿalong the road method, and areas where section and township lines were run together, there?ÿare a?ÿcouple of?ÿlocal townships with double original corners, one crew running north and one crew running south (one case separated by 900' N-S?ÿthe other case 600' E-W). Stuff happens.
Back to the OP's question 5400' when it's record 5280' isn't the least bit surprising to me. Even with a well surveyed township. Specially into a closing line.
Have attached subject township plat (I hope)
Have attached subject township plat (I hope)
It didn't work, but anyone can get it at GLO records. What would be more useful is to post the 1988 survey.?ÿ
Section 1, I do believe this is where you are. Not much going on, but I do like the LT on the north line.
?ÿ
1988 Survey
My interest...
I have property...deed description from patent through subsequent conveyances - ??SW4 of NE4, S1, T22N, R12W?. I need to know where my north property line is located.
I commissioned the 1988 survey mentioned in my initial post showing 1350?? from the north section line to my north property line. The surveyor is deceased and I have no access to his field notes.
I have found (recorded) a 1958 survey of the east adjoining properties showing a 1320?? interval.
A person wanting to purchase access running from my NE corner to his property in the SE4 of NE4 has produced surveys by different surveyors:
First surveyor ?? shows roughly 1350?? from N section line to my N property line apparently finding my NE corner monument previously set. He was apparently retracing my 1988 survey.
Second surveyor - surveyor ignored the NE corner monument previously set and set a new NE corner monument, the best I can figure, at 1416?? from the north section line. Imagine that!
GLO survey field notes are attached (zipped).?ÿ Thanks for your interest.
Where are the GLO Notes??ÿ
