It looks like there may be at least two competing southwest corners of Section 1 about 100' apart, but more interesting is the fact their seems to be 5.77 chains between this township and the township to the west?
There is only so much anyone help you with without actually doing the survey. Is there a reason you think something is wrong with the 1988 survey??ÿ
Thanks for posting the plats, I can speculate all day about them, but without being there with all the supporting information I wouldn't be able to give much of an opinion. That and the fact I'm not regestered there. It is interesting, a local surveyor would be your best bet.?ÿ
1320 distances were often shown and laid out to break up sections even when the sections were actually larger or smaller. The 100' at the SE section corner is also interesting. Those are my two quick observations.?ÿ
The 1958 survey was either a desk survey or stubbed in from the NE Cor in accordance with the original chainage. It subdivides the original GLO boundary perfectly. That will never happen with new measurements. ?ÿThe 1988 survey makes new measurements but uses proportion to subdivide which is the last thing to do when subdivision has occurred. Thus you have a mess. I would be looking for evidence of established boundaries made even before the 1988 survey which appears to have possibly been ignored. Did neighbors use any of the fences shown on the 1988 survey as the boundary lines? Could be the best evidence of the legal boundaries.?ÿ
Remember to contribute generously to the fine provider of this site for the valuable advice you are receiving here. ?ÿSee the link in my signature line.
These surveyors are obviously not using the same monuments for the SE and NE corners of Sec 1.?ÿ
1. The 3000 ft. is according to original govt measure.?ÿ It adds up to what the govt survey calls for on paper between the NE cor and the NE cor S /2..... In other words the distances in the deeds are as though the original government measure is correct. But its not. Every survey of the E line SE /4 vary vastly.?ÿ
2. Using the 1988 dist of 675 is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat when attempting to add up the total length of the section from various deeds and surveys. Apples and oranges.?ÿ
?ÿ
3. You can't plug in the 2006 measure into the south leg. It's highly unlikely the 2006 and 1988 surveys hold many monuments in common. It sure doesn't look like it. The 2006 survey has the S/2 of the section 76 ft short of GLO measure. The 1988 survey has it 60 ft long.?ÿ?ÿ
How do you figure? You can't. The figuring left the station a long time ago. The legal line is where it was established and observed by owners on the ground. Each new survey doesn't change that unless the owners accept one of the them. If it can't be determined and if owners can't agree the lawyers will have hay day with this one.?ÿ By the looks of it I can't believe any more measuring will help matters much.?ÿ?ÿ
