setting a quarter corner by proportionate or proration

What section line is this? Is it a section on the north tier of the township?

Hold the existing monument.

I encounter sections like that all over the place. Seriously. Some are based on fraudulent original surveys. Others are possibly based on errors in the original surveys. Some may have been caused by the first arrivals actually moving the surveyor's monuments before anyone else knew the difference. We now have nearly 150 years of reliance on those monuments that in no way agree with what someone wrote in their field notes. Attempting to "fix" everything would be impossible as there is no way to determine which corners are absolutely, positively correct. In your case, you have two section corners. How do you know that both of them are in the exact same position as what the original surveyor noted?

this is the boundary between section 8 and section 9...this pipe is a joke of a monument...no surveyor set this pipe for a quarter corner...I suspect some property owner stuck it up because they knew the section line run close to the front of their shack.

I wouldn't venture any opinion without being able to see the notes and the plat for the township and also any special instructions that may have been issued.

Is this an original or a dependent resurvey? If it’s an original it’s odd to have 40 and 40.52 on the line common to 8&9. I would check the plat before I would do anything and be sure it agrees with the notes. If it shows a straight prorated corner and not 40 and 40.52 then the plat holds sway.

I’m sure that it’s different in other places, but 86 and 26 feet from a midpoint wouldn’t bother me at all in most of the areas I retrace. Heck I just located an original ¼ stone a few days ago just about that far “out” from the controlling stones. I would not throw out a monument that has been long accepted holding a prorate without a very good reason. And by extablished section corners are we talking about two originals or two long held monuments similar to the quarter monument? Monuments didn’t have to be set by a surveyor to be valid. It could have been a landowner marking the original post, and it has history, and that's important.

Look hard for the accessories and research, research, research before doing anything.

I would have to know something about fence occupation in
both section 8 and section 9. How close are the fences
to the original corners in other parts of the section?

first... The mid point is dead wrong.
====
Your overall distance is only three feet out in one mile, not bad at all!
26 feet off line? depending on the terrain, that could be rather reasonable if it is not very open and clear... but 86 feet off of distance; maybe it was never intended to be at the location of the 1/4 corner.
Is there any occupation? Any record of bearing trees or other references in the GLO notes?
I don't have a copy handy, what concept are you referring to in Brown's?

I agree with Peter. For whatever reason, if the GLO notes & plat put the 1/4 corner at 40 ch and the next Section corner at 80.52, then it is certain that re-establishing the 1/4 at the midpoint is NOT the correct solution.

Beyond that, there are lots of possibilities not answered by the facts given.

Have you attempted to research the history of the supposed 1/4 corner iron (or goat stake as the case may be)?

Have you used the prorated position as a search location?

Have you analyzed occupation, where it is , how long it's been in place?

Have you looked for evidence of previous lines of occupation in a different location which may better fit the proportioned 1/4 location?

Have you spoken with the surveyor who accepted the iron?

.
.
.

But he didn't say the 1/4 corner was set at 40, he said the half mile post.

Depending on where you are, and how and when the patents were issued will determine if the corner of the lands patented should be at midpoint or where the half mile post was (not at midpoint).

In the SE US PLSS States such as Alabama and parts of Florida the half mile posts were never intended to serve as 1/4 corners and there are letters from the GLO commissioner trying to explain and straighten it out. Usually the plat acreages reflect what the GLO did and what the patents say.

A half mile post and a 1/4 corner are not always the same particularly in the "lands south of Tennessee."

- jlw

Proportioning and prorating are a last resort. Is the corner even lost?

I have consulted Brown's boundary control and legal principles-fourth edition page 205, principle 21 but still like the proration solution.

First of all your question leads me to believe that you do not understand proportioning. Proportioning is not just mid-point. Proportioning and proration are the same thing. It just happens that often the distances used in proportion are equal on either side of a quarter corner (i.e. 40 ch) which makes the point midpoint.

Second, you should be referencing the BLM manual not Brown, although Brown's principle is correct as he took it from the BLM Manual.

Third, there is a lot more involved here than the facts you are giving. Do you want the half mile post or the quarter corner? Is there a difference? What point is used by the deeds in the area (not just your client's deed). Did you ask the other surveyor why he/she used the existing pipe? Did you talk to the landowners? Are the section corners you have found the original section corners? Maybe one of them is the problem not the existing pipe. Where are the occupation lines?

Evelyn

The BLM manual is your friend, especially concerning bona fide rights. Search, analyze search more.. 🙂

Have to agree with Evelyn. Sounds like the notes from a dependent resurvey, need to do some more research and look at occupation closely.
jud

Ditto what Evelyn said.
I don't have the time to link to case files, but there are numerous court cases that will beat home the fact that monuments set in good faith that have been proven to be relied upon will hold, right wrong or indifferent. Sounds like you have a fun one on your hands. I would be positive that I have searched ALL records and spoke with all affected land owners prior to calling off a purported 1/4 corner and setting a new one.
Good Luck in your research.

Thanks to everyone who posted comments. Around here in North Florida most surveyors (read as all I know) set the quarter corner at the mid point on the section line. I thought the half-mile post was the quarter corner...what other reason would the surveyor have for setting a post at the mid-point? As for occupation lines, in Section 8, which is where the other surveyor was dividing an estate, there are several parcels using the pipe. The big stink will be when I take that 26 foot bend out of the section line and show the boundary line across the doorstep of the sharecroppers 50 year old shack. I have found fragments of old wire fence line in the ground at the midpoint and the half-mile post location along with testimony from an 82 year old farmer ,who I am working for, that he remembers when there was a fence there.

Learned Something New

In the areas of the PLSS I've worked, there hasn't been any distinction between a 1/4 corner and some different point referred to as a half mile post, unless it was that set on an easterly run before being corrected. But those generally didn't occur on N-S section lines.

Then again, I haven't worked in the SE PLSS states.

Thanks for the info, Jerry.

What state is this?

What is the name of the GLO original surveyor?

Have you ever researched the work he did?

Something you can do, is take a USGS quad and study some of his other work, and see if he is commonly consistent with a pattern? You can even look at his crk calls, and the original GLO calls, and study him.

My point is that there is ALWAYS more data to look at, and that data could lead a diligent surveyor to an original GLO corner.

The cut off point is an important thing.

But I want to suggest that there are more ASSUMED lost corners, than genuine LOST corners!

Hang in there. Chase every rat, kill every gopher. You will develop yourself. And, find more stuff.

Nate

Just a side thought:

Section 5-7 (2009) Manual: "Generally, within the PLSS, the second position in time will have the burden to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the first position is not an accurate retracement and reestablishment of the lines of the original survey."

I must agree with what Evelyn said.

My immediate reaction to your post was the same question: did you find the original controlling section corners? If not, how do you know one of those aren't the wrong ones? But I don't know that answer.

Something else to consider, is how do you know that the found ¼-corner wasn't an upgrade of the orignal corner? My presumption is that a monument (especially the only monument in the area) is correct, and look for evidence to disprove it. If I can't find enough evidence to overcome an accepted and used oorner, I am compelled to keep it. Proportionment is a "last resort" and that means to me, that property ownership relying on the found monument is a much higher order of acceptance.

(Okay, I don't think I said anything that the others didn't say, but I felt compelled to say it anyway).