I am surveying a Section 5. Five of the eight original stone monuments have been found only lacking the E1/4 ( it has a pipe which I may accept), the N1/4 and the northwest corner. Retracing the north township line all the stones to the east were recovered then lost the trail along the north line of 5. Lacking those two I went into Section 6. Section 6 has two original stones monumenting the W1/4. This was discovered from research (mostly by other surveyors) and two retracements from the 20's and 50's. A crew ran the range line for the original survey (1880's vintage) from the southwest corner of the township to the W1/4 of Section 6 and the notes say to the township corner setting it. But what happened was that the north township for the township to the west was run from the west and the northwest corner of Section 6 was set and then that crew “stubbed out” the N1/4 & W1/4 of Section 6 creating two monuments for the W1/4. A different kind of pincushion. There's no way to tell which came first from the notes.
It would be nice to know how this all pans out. Here in Florida, we have a somewhat similar situation in a township in Lake County where a deputy surveyor named Gould "checkerboard" the subdivision into sections and thereby created double monumentation. Funny thing is that two different surveyors back in the 50's proved different sets of markers. I would assume such a situation would benefit from a dependent resurvey. Sadly, there are several townships around here left with poor legacies, some with several dependent resurveys having been made.
> But what happened was that the north township for the township to the west was run from the west and the northwest corner of Section 6 was set and then that crew “stubbed out” the N1/4 & W1/4 of Section 6 creating two monuments for the W1/4. A different kind of pincushion. There's no way to tell which came first from the notes.
how exactly does a crew "stub out" (whatever that is) the N1/4 cor of a section outside of the township they were presumably surveying? Whatever I'm missing, the township to the west (or north of that) would have no business setting the N1/4 cor of your Sec 6.
Sorry, put this in the wrong catagory; ment to put in land surveying. It appears that the township line along the north line of the Sec. 6 Township was established using section lines from the south. As they came to the township line they would set the northwest corner of each section go east a 1/2 mile and set the N1/4 for the Sections 1,2,3 and 4; then they would proceed to run the section lines of the next township to the north setting the northwest corner of each section and turning 90 and "stubbing out" the north 1/4 of each section-again that is a guess. Of course the notes tell a different story.
By using the term "stubbing out" I'm just saying they ran the 1/2 mile but didn't connect to the northeast corner of the section. That isn't unuseal for this area and the township is in remarkable condition. Maye 90% of the roiginals have been recovered. Of course there is quite a bit of distortion. Also, the BLM is preforming a resurvey for a portion of the township as we speak and that is where I got the records for the double corners.
Is there record of a Township Survey prior to the survey of the Subdivision lines?
Were the Parallels surveyed in "normal" GLO fashion?
Can you see a Return (accepted) date on the Township plat? That might give you a clue as to which was surveyed first.
Any reference to bearing trees in the notes? That is assuming you're in the tress.:-$
The notes are pretty clear: the range line was run first and the northwest township corner was to set by that crew-in the notes. Also the interior was surveyed using standard methods for the time-starting at the southwest corner of Sec. 36 then north a mile and east a mile, ect.
But what actually happened was that a different crew set the township corner and that crew set out the W1/4 and N1/4 of Sec. 6 and the interior lines were run by at least two crews-one in the north 1/2 and one in the south 1/2 and they didn't make a connection to each other. The north crew dropped down along the north line of Sections 19-24 and set the 1/4 corners causing a large SE bearing along the south 1/2 of the east and west lines of those Sections. I think it was the crew in the north 1/2 of the township that ran the range line, just a guess.
I looked for a second township corner set from the south but couldn't find anything, an investigation by the GLO in the 20's also looked for one and came up empty; they also ran a search parallel with the range line and about 10 chains east and didn't find anything. They did that because they found the W1/4 of Sec. 6 south 40 chains from the northwest township corner. Then they recovered the southwest township corner and ran north finding all the corners except the E1/4 of 31.
It's a weird looking township to say the least.
