Imagine a Section where there is agreement on 7 of the 8 original corners around the exterior.
1949: County Surveyor states the local landowner shows him a stump (the corner was a tree) in a fence for the original south quarter corner. The stump is the correct species. He subdivides the east half of the section into 40s using this stump and the other relevant corners upon which there is agreement. 1951 field notes of another surveyor find the stump and fence on a stadia survey so that lends credibility to the County Surveyor's statement. The same landowner pointed out the southeast corner of the section which everyone is in agreement on as stated above.
1966: County Surveyor (different person) subdivides the east half of Section 16 (to the south) into 40s. He uses the same common section corners with Section 9 but single proportions the quarter corner. This point is approximately 60 feet east and 50 feet north of the stump (based on various maps and records I have). He says nothing about the stump or fence; possibly he didn't know about them because the 1949 map is unrecorded although I got my copy from the CS's office.
1970: A certain government agency (not mine) resurveys Section 9 and sets (or uses existing) 1/16th corners. The reason is they are using them to tie some M&B surveys to (small tracts). Their subdivision substantially agrees on the east-west lines but swings the north south lines counterclockwise about their north end due to the SP quarter corner. They use all of the locally recognized corners including the (for them) recent 1966 south quarter corner.
So now there are two sets of 1/16th corners in the Section.
No one did a perfect measurement job. The 1970 survey even recognizes some corners which obviously are not perfectly at their exact perfect position.
The special instructions are misleading in that they indicate a 1931 GLO resurvey searched for and did not find the south quarter (not the case for sure) and the southeast corner (the notes indicate they went by 5 chains south of it so of course they didn't find it; this is rough overgrown terrain).
This is not a case of measuring differently; this is a case of what is the best evidence of the original quarter section corner. There may be a credibility problem with a stump which just happens to be in a fence line particularly if the stump is no longer available in 1970. The 1949 County Surveyor was less perfect than most so maybe they legitimately questioned his version of the quarter section corner. If I was a private landowner minding my own business with a 90 year old patent I would be a little disconcerted if a government agency finally got around to monumenting their boundary 100 years after the original survey and they shaved 22 feet off my property particularly if I had the County Surveyor survey the same boundary 21 years ago. But that may be just me.
Dave
Keith's had a busy day. Maybe he'll be along later to discuss the government's actions. One thing is for sure, the proportioned corner is not in the original 1/4 corner location. We'll never know for sure if the stump is the remnant of the tree that once marked it but the County Surveyor thought so and the property owners went with that and the 1/16 corners based on it as the Manual specified. Interesting case and one that I hope you end up talking to that government agency that's not you about it and find out what their take is on it.
DAVE DAVE DAVE
dO ANY OF THE NOTES CALL THE STUMP THE SECTION CORNER? I have trouble following you when you say that a 1/4 corner was set 60 norht of the stump?
BTW be sure to get all the plats, not just the resurvey.... could be more clues there
sounds fun
Dave
Is the government agency, BLM?
Keith
Dave, is this in Amador?
Dane
I have four files pockets stuffed to the gills with stuff including plats and field notes.
The original south quarter corner was a Live Oak (no bearing trees). I can't remember the size.
Bronson in 1949 said he found a live oak stump (no size given) on a north south fence per the testimony of one of the landowners (son of the original patentee). This is the same landowner that pointed out the section corner a half mile east that everyone is using today.
Yes, Amador County near Pine Grove.
The County Surveyor's office has two banks of flat files filled with unrecorded surveys by the County Surveyor mostly from the 1940s and 1950s as far as I can tell but don't quote me on that.
This is one of the easiest counties to research in but there are other gold country counties with the same type of set up. They have a research room with just about everything and you print out or copy what ever you need.
