Been about two year since i've done anything in a West Texas but just picked up a project that runs across about 6 miles of PSL originally surveyed by Twichell. It looks like WD ran the Block lines but never set interior sections. Bucy followed in the 1940s and submitted corrected field notes for patent. An LSLS ran the entire PSL block in the 1970s, finding most of Twichell's work and devising a good solution for the block. We have found Twichell's corners, Bucy's corners and a few supplemental corners set in 1970s. Bucy was a little off in his placement of the section he patented. If I recall correctly, (ignoring adverse possession for sake of discussion) the surface owner has no claim through the patent to any property outside the limits of the of the original section as established from Twichell's work. The surface owner also loses any claim to any portion of the original twichell section that Bucy failed to include in his corrected field notes. Those strips outside the CFN remain with the state even though the surface may be under control of the adjoining section owner because you cant AP against the state. Does this sound correct and would the section owner be able to file good faith claim on the remnant?
So the situation is that the entire block was sold as School land (either by section or fractional part, but in reference to two different surveys, i.e.:
- WD Twitchell's and
- one isolated section per corrected field notes by Bucy?
The questions that I'd like to know the answers to are:
- Were any of the surrounding sections in the block awarded prior to the issuance of the patent on the Bucy CFN?
- Were any of the surrounding sections patented prior to the issuance of the patent on the Bucy CFN?
- What mineral reservations are indicated on the sections surrounding that patented on the Bucy CFN when the rights of the present owners began (i.e. original award and sale under which they claim and/or patent)?
- What official instructions, if any, did Bucy receive from the Commissioner in the course of his work?
That is, it's a much different situation than a typical railroad block where the odd-numbered surveys were (typically) patented to the certificate holder on the original field notes and at least some of the even-numbered school sections were patented on corrected field notes that may not actually fit the original survey of the block.
In the case of a block that is entirely school land, there may be senior rights stemming from the sequence of awards and the descriptions upon which patents were issued. It all had been appropriated for the benefit of the Permanent School Fund and if the sales of the lands within the block of land established by the original survey did not conform to that survey, then that in itself is not the same sort of problem as would exist in a railroad survey block where the alternate section had been patented long before the school sections were awarded for purchase.
I am waiting for copies of the files to be mailed from the GLO so I am afraid I can't answer all your questions at this time. We should have paid for overnight shipping.
I was posting from memory from home last night and I got a few facts wrong. The subject PSL blocks were done by Dennis Corwin in 1884 and the block in question was never surveyed on the ground. The field notes are fictitious. Also, the corrected field notes in 1945 were surveyed on the ground by Booker, not Bucy. Twichell and Frank Friend were working on infill blocks adjoining the PSL and had to figure out where the PSL land was in order to establish the adjoining blocks. So, the PSL was "created" by Corwin but defined on the ground by Friend and Twichell. That is why there are no original interior monuments.
The sections appear to have been sold to various applicants based on the work by Corwin. Of the jackets that are available online, there are no original field notes in the file. (Waiting to see what comes with my order). I believe the two patented tracts in question were awarded in a similar time period as the adjoiners but until I get more info I do not know seniority. In 1945, Booker resurveyed for Corrected Field Notes.
It does appear that all of the sections were awarded prior to the issuance of patent notes. 4 of the sections in the vicinity have been forfeited prior to the CFN (which adds an interesting twist) and were awarded to new applicants in 2006.
No other patents in this part of the block have been issued besides the two set out by Booker.
The state reserved all the minerals on the sections that were forfeited and then re-awarded. I am uncertain on the other sections at this time.
Reading and reviewing Atlantic Refining Company v. Noel 443 S.W.2d 35 (1968)
> Twichell and Frank Friend were working on infill blocks adjoining the PSL and had to figure out where the PSL land was in order to establish the adjoining blocks. So, the PSL was "created" by Corwin but defined on the ground by Friend and Twichell.
I would not assume that either Friend or Twitchell had the authority to "define" the location of the senior PSL block unless they were acting under specific instructions of the Commissioner of the GLO and what they did was not to the obvious detriment of the vested interest of the Permanent School Fund in the land within the PSL block, i.e. the full quantity remained in the block under their theory of location.
The location of the blocks is established and has been thoroughly adjudicated to satisfy the vacancy hunters. That is not in question. I am trying to reconcile the difference between corners I believe belong to Booker. I believe I have figured out how to approach the issue but nothing can be done until the GLO packet arrives and I realized very late in the day that it is President's Day and nothing will be coming in the mail.
> The location of the blocks is established and has been thoroughly adjudicated to satisfy the vacancy hunters.
If the position of the block was the subject of a lawsuit to which the State of Texas was a party, that's a great simplification.
What remains is the problem of sorting out the various rights of landowners that originated in the original transfers from the Permanent School Fund, including contracts of purchase to which the State was a party and, of course, patents. There, the central problem is simply determining the priority of rights in land and in the mineral estates.
Where ya at Andy?
Most of Friends 2"IPs around 27 & 28 are CFNs.
If any of y'all wanna borry my PLSS cookbook, I could probably loan it to ya. It might be of value to figure out how to turn 90's and measure out them thar squares..... 😀
Oops...sorry. I meant to say "yeah, it can get complicated sometimes there, can't it?"
Sec. 32 Blk. 29, PSL Loving.
There is no evidence of Booker's corners on the ground that I was able to discern.
There is no sign of occupation that defines the section in my opinion. Just a lot of scrub and desert.
I have arrived at a construction that I feel comfortable with.
Newton's reconstruction of PSL Blk 76 is quite a jumble some several miles to the north. It was interesting to see his holding section 36 as previously patented but not 35. Still trying to figure out the logic in that one.
I found 1 pipe of Bookers, but M. Newton re-did Blk. 29, send your email and I'll send a copy of his plat.
I have Newton's replat of Block 29. He agrees with Booker fairly close on the east-west width but his north-south distance is 5280 compare to Newton's 5300+. Did you find one of Booker's corners on Section of 30 or 32?
