I am currently working on a survey of the E1/2 of the NW1/4 of a section. The section is surrounded by fenced county roads. Another surveyor split the existing fences an set monuments at the W, N, and S 1/4 corners, also all 4 section corners. One of his surveys divides part of the W1/2 of the NW1/4 and the other part of the SW1/4. He accepted a fence line for the W1/16 line of the NW1/4 which is my clients west boundary, there is also an old fence along both the N-S and the E-W center of section lines. He sets a monument at the center of section which is my clients SE corner and does not use the fence but the intersections of the 1/4 corners. This monument has been disturbed by ditch maintenance and I'm planning on setting the center of section at the fence corner. This creates a conflict with his plat, but I would rather create a conflict with a surveyor than the land owners. My opinion is, If he was using the fence lines as the only available evidence, it should have included the center of section.
A fence with pedigree can be as good as a line tree. If one end of that fence is evidence of the line, you can bet the other end is as well.
I agree if the fence corner has been accepted and used by the adjoining owners.
In the areas we often work, it is somewhat common the accept older fences at the Quarter Corners on the exterior of the section if it is old and fits within the framework of the section. Very rarely will an intersection of fences near the center of section be accepted as the position. It will only be if the fences that intersect at that location are of the same materials and time frame running to all quarter corners. Is it still the center of section if only one landowner rolled out 2 rolls of wire from the north and west quarter corners and pulled it tight to set his corner post? And everyone else just tired to it because it was already there?
jpb, post: 432093, member: 9284 wrote: In the areas we often work, it is somewhat common the accept older fences at the Quarter Corners on the exterior of the section if it is old and fits within the framework of the section.
This is quite typical and is usually correct under the appropriate circumstances. Most surveyors follow this method, usually correctly so answering the question of is there better evidence of the established corner/line?
jpb, post: 432093, member: 9284 wrote: Very rarely will an intersection of fences near the center of section be accepted as the position.
This also is quite common, usually incorrectly so.
jpb, post: 432093, member: 9284 wrote: It will only be if the fences that intersect at that location are of the same materials and time frame running to all quarter corners.
The only problem with this statement is that for some reason all other relevant evidence seems to be excluded. There being the same materials and time frame of construction is evidence, but it isn't the only evidence that we are allowed to use to answer the questions of establishment and location.
Another "rule" that I have heard is that we can only accept the location of a previously established corner (16ths, c1/4, etc.) if we can prove the location was staked by a licensed surveyor using the proper Chapter 3 methods of subdivision - this too has no basis in the Manual or the law, just another incorrect, unsubstantiated "rule".
jpb, post: 432093, member: 9284 wrote: Is it still the center of section if only one landowner rolled out 2 rolls of wire from the north and west quarter corners and pulled it tight to set his corner post? And everyone else just tired to it because it was already there?
Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't - it depends on the remainder of the body of evidence and the applicable law(s).
If we are experts in locating boundaries, shouldn't we be able to recognize an established and accepted boundary/corner? One would certainly hope so, but far too often, apparently not.
I can think of one center section corner I encountered where the existing fences came in like a pinwheel toy. They formed what looked a bit like a cattle or other stock corral. Silly Swedes. Must have brought this idea from their homeland. Have never found it again anywhere else.
billvhill, post: 432076, member: 8398 wrote: I am currently working on a survey of the E1/2 of the NW1/4 of a section. The section is surrounded by fenced county roads. Another surveyor split the existing fences an set monuments at the W, N, and S 1/4 corners, also all 4 section corners. One of his surveys divides part of the W1/2 of the NW1/4 and the other part of the SW1/4. He accepted a fence line for the W1/16 line of the NW1/4 which is my clients west boundary, there is also an old fence along both the N-S and the E-W center of section lines. He sets a monument at the center of section which is my clients SE corner and does not use the fence but the intersections of the 1/4 corners. This monument has been disturbed by ditch maintenance and I'm planning on setting the center of section at the fence corner. This creates a conflict with his plat, but I would rather create a conflict with a surveyor than the land owners. My opinion is, If he was using the fence lines as the only available evidence, it should have included the center of section.
Not to put myself out as an expert on this subject but here is the reasoning for not using the fence corner for the Center 1/4 corner. The N, S, E & W 1/4 Corners were all usually marked by a GLO Surveyor, the fence corners there may be the best evidence of the perpetuation of these original corners, the Center 1/4 and all 1/16th corners were never anything but a mathematical position as no monument was ever set in a normal section unless by record or testimony you can prove that position was marked by a surveyor of some kind. In my experience the fence corner and some monuments found at the at the Center 1/4 are by far the most erroneous corner monumented in a section. Accepting and putting that fence corner of record as the Center 1/4 Corner not only affects the land owners adjoining it but every tract in that entire section.
This is a great post, it goes straight to the central issues facing PLSS retracers. It is odd that he accepted the fence along the west line of the E2NW4 but not the C1/4.
Bushwhacker, post: 432134, member: 10727 wrote: Not to put myself out as an expert on this subject but here is the reasoning for not using the fence corner for the Center 1/4 corner. The N, S, E & W 1/4 Corners were all usually marked by a GLO Surveyor, the fence corners there may be the best evidence of the perpetuation of these original corners, the Center 1/4 and all 1/16th corners were never anything but a mathematical position as no monument was ever set in a normal section unless by record or testimony you can prove that position was marked by a surveyor of some kind. In my experience the fence corner and some monuments found at the at the Center 1/4 are by far the most erroneous corner monumented in a section. Accepting and putting that fence corner of record as the Center 1/4 Corner not only affects the land owners adjoining it but every tract in that entire section.
Yes, that is the "reasoning" many use, as it has been taught and preached by the unknowing for many decades. The problem with that line of "reasoning" is that it has no basis in the Manual, logic, or the law. In fact it is specifically contradicted.
Once one understands the legal concepts behind establishment, good faith, and the necessary stability of boundaries, the folly of the "logic" of the last sentence is apparent.
Brian Allen, post: 432136, member: 1333 wrote: Yes, that is the "reasoning" many use, as it has been taught and preached by the unknowing for many decades. The problem with that line of "reasoning" is that it has no basis in the Manual, logic, or the law. In fact it is specifically contradicted.
Once one understands the legal concepts behind establishment, good faith, and the necessary stability of boundaries, the folly of the "logic" of the last sentence is apparent.
Apparently you have a different BLM Manuel than I, and there are numerous cases of law that agree with that methodology. To do the way you purport to work we as a profession are no longer needed, the fence builders will have marked the boundaries and the GIS folks can determine the measurements. There is nothing to say that a fence corner can't be their Property Corner but probably not the Center 1/4 Corner. Just a question, if it is taught that way and is published that way how did you be come the all knowing and I and the majority of the surveyors I know become the unknowing.
It's a tough situation, the burden of proof falls on the rejector of evidence. Here you have a monument for the center 1/4 in conflict with a fence intersection for the center1/4. So it's up to the surveyor to decide which he will accept. One has an older pedigree and can't be rejected out of hand, the other is a monument that was set at a math position and needs to be looked at also.
It's what is faced often by surveyors in the PLSS. Sometimes a fence is just a fence, sometimes it's way more than that. I would say there must be a reason the surveyor accepted other interior occupation lines but rejected this one.
In theory, the center of section is the intersection of the quarter corners. The story is Abe Linclon made this recomendation. How did this info get to the county surveyors? Fax, e-mail, postal service? Even if it did, did the county surveyors follow it? I've visited a lot of center of sections, I've looked at a lot of old survyors records, and I've yet found a survey older than 1970 where they used the intersection of the quarter corners to set the center.
My point is all this survey work was done a long time ago, using the incorrect method and we shouldn't ignore it. Of course it also depends on where you work, what I say above goes for the part of Illinois I work in.
One thing to also consider, I think billvhill works in an area similar to where most of my work takes place.
I always look at imperial entanglements. It is more probable than not that if I set a C1/4 corner it will be attached to some kind of federal lands. If not a piece of federal surface ownership then some federal mineral ownership and a C1/4 will control all the 40's in a section.
My two cents is that more is needed than just fence locations.Who built the fence? Why did they build the fence? Is there any evidence that the fence line has any relationship whatsoever to the original survey and monuments of the original survey. Parole evidence may be needed. There are several IBLA cases that deal with weighting fence line evidence. Unfortunately I cannot think of any of the particular cases at the moment.
From Sipe, Chapter 2...."If a fence is deliberately set back from the true line,....."
While this discussion on fence lines in interesting, the OP states something that seems to be missed in the preceding posts. He states that section was broken down by splitting right-of-way fences. The use of fences as evidence of the original location of section corners is based on the fact that they may have been built using the original monuments. The right-of-way fences do not offer that type of evidence.
David Livingstone, post: 432157, member: 431 wrote: In theory, the center of section is the intersection of the quarter corners. The story is Abe Linclon made this recomendation. How did this info get to the county surveyors? Fax, e-mail, postal service? Even if it did, did the county surveyors follow it? I've visited a lot of center of sections, I've looked at a lot of old survyors records, and I've yet found a survey older than 1970 where they used the intersection of the quarter corners to set the center.
My point is all this survey work was done a long time ago, using the incorrect method and we shouldn't ignore it. Of course it also depends on where you work, what I say above goes for the part of Illinois I work in.
It's my understanding that statuatory method of non-fractional section subdivision has remained basically unchanged since the act of Feb. 11, 1805 (4 years and a day before Lincoln was born). It's been around for a long time, so either they could't read, didn't care, or had other erroneous instructions that I have yet to see.
So much time has passed since many of these first subdivided surveys that it gets complicated. Does a private shortcut 1320 club survey move the originally protracted line? Maybe. And sometimes a fence is just a fence.
PLSS design and the court anticipated private owners authorizing the finishing of marking the sub divisions of the sections and living at peace with it, not a surveyor in 2017.
David Livingstone, post: 432157, member: 431 wrote: In theory, the center of section is the intersection of the quarter corners. The story is Abe Linclon made this recomendation. How did this info get to the county surveyors? Fax, e-mail, postal service? Even if it did, did the county surveyors follow it? I've visited a lot of center of sections, I've looked at a lot of old survyors records, and I've yet found a survey older than 1970 where they used the intersection of the quarter corners to set the center.
My point is all this survey work was done a long time ago, using the incorrect method and we shouldn't ignore it. Of course it also depends on where you work, what I say above goes for the part of Illinois I work in.
I have seen them in Arkansas where the Center 1/4 was set by running a compass line from the 1/4 corner and intersecting them, this was done by CC Camps in the 1930's, another and for along time puzzling method to me was to run an East to West line between the E & W 1/4 Corners and setting the Center 1/4 at the mid-point I later found a set of instructions sent out to the GLO Surveyors discribing this method.
The KGB, post: 432170, member: 10394 wrote: It's my understanding that statuatory method of non-fractional section subdivision has remained basically unchanged since the act of Feb. 11, 1805 (4 years and a day before Lincoln was born). It's been around for a long time, so either they could't read, didn't care, or had other erroneous instructions that I have yet to see.
So much time has passed since many of these first subdivided surveys that it gets complicated. Does a private shortcut 1320 club survey move the originally protracted line? Maybe. And sometimes a fence is just a fence.
I disagree. Its my understanding that there was some confusion on where the center of section should be. I believe Abe was asked to render an opinion since he had been a surveyor in the past.