Serious PLS Question

It would be hard not to. However, I think I would look at some ownership issues.

Is the entire section owned by one entity and from a practical standpoint the C4 doesn't really matter at this time? If this were the case, it might be tempting to reconcile the C4 with the other quarters.

However, if the the 4 - 1/4's are owned by different people then I think you would have to honor it if the different owners are accepting it.

Mind you now, I'm just a little ole country M&B surveyor so I may not know of what I speak. But that's my $0.02 (+/- .04) worth.

One quarter (SE) is in different ownership than the remainder of the Sec. (Not my client).

My client is a large corporation that actually leases the SE/4 (and everything else you can spit on out there)..

But it's not such a moot point when you consider the fact that IF (or when) the big boy finally hammers a deal out, the price will probably be "per acre".

Boy, Paden

I know you probably don't need to hear that your question will attract more questions than answers, but here's a couple: why did they set the center 1/4 to start with? Why did they replace all the exterior corners? Just a little more input will get you way more opinions than you ever really wanted;-)

Don

Even with only 2 owners for the 4 parts, I think you have to honor it if it's there.

Boy, Paden

The later survey reports little or no trace of the earlier survey...except that they close very well on the T.C.s.

Don't know why they originally set the center corners..in my memory it's the first time I've ever seen it done that early (other than a "Three Mile" breakout..which really isn't a 'center').

I'm trying to find out what their "Special Instructions" were.

PS - I'm wishin' I had Dennis Mouland's cell number...he has apparently retired from government service.

Much of Oklahoma is unique in these two respects. Since alot of it was indian lands at one time original surveys sometimes included subdivision to quarters or 3 mile subdivisions to dilineate 40's. This aspect is not unique but occurred in other areas where there were indian lands from the midwest to California.

The other unusual thing is that many of the original surveys were redone by USGS and approved by GLO. From what I have seen these surveys were not retracements but a second original survey.

This very rarily occurred in the PLSS but in Oklahoma it is very common.

Theoretically the US can survey its land as many times as it wants however it wants up until the time title is conveyed. Once a patent is issued then it will and should be controlled by the last official survey and plat prior to the patent.

There are places where some lands might be patented at different dates where technically you have one survey controlling some patents and another controlling others. The situation is one where I believe junior senior rights would come into play and you might have to really research the patent dates as you may have to deal with overlapping aliquots where the ultimate title depends on senior right.

One question is whether you are anyone has any evidence of the first survey, or a way of establishing that the occupation lines were in reliance upon them. Absent that it could be very hard to recover the first survey.

jlw

Now here's a good one to ponder

If the C4 is gone, do you have to reset it by recreatring the 1871 survey which it was based on? Or did the second (1899) "original survey" supercede the first one - even for the purposes of determining the C4 location which had previously been set?

your right..

It was the USGS in 1899. Most of these are good surveys and impecable notes. A few are 'dependent', most are not.

I have found original (1871) closing corners on the north side of 4N2E. The USGS only resurveyed the Township lines there and 'honored' (or at least noted) the locations of the C.C.s.

It appears to me the second survey in 5N2E was to possibly re-meander the river..it changes frequently down there.

Now here's a good one to ponder

A comnpletely truthful answer: I don't know the correct answer.

Resetting all of the exterior monuments after a center corner has been set is extremely uncommon. Normally, only one or two might have been remonumented at a significantly different location. Then, I would definitely use the old center corner regardless of how it fits the "new" intersection.

When was the first patent issued?

Dave..

That's kinda where I'm at with it.

I'm of the opinion that patented lands prior to the second survey had some sort of senior rights. The monuments on the exterior of the section are probably obliterated..the center that was originally set is probably all that remains of the first survey.

One patent in 1894

I'm not sure about the rest. The second survey even notes the property owner's names.

I've got a day or two at the courthouse. Too bad McClain County isn't on line..but they do have "Los Dos Amigos" down the street from the Courthouse for lunch.

Dennis Mouland's Current Contact Info

Witness Tree Consulting, Inc.

Is this the correct section?

Dennis Mouland's Current Contact Info

thnx James!

Is this the correct section?

that's it...if you look at the original plat you'll see that e-w road in the S/2 was there even back then.

PS - you can almost see why I think that original center might be in place. We'll find out tomorrow morning.

It could be worse.

YOU COULD BE IN COLORADO