Thoughts on what adjective denotes a Survey that establishes an original corner monument.

"Original corner not set per record documents. 3" pipe and cap set per section ___ of originally controlling manual from the following found original or accepted monuments at ____."

Any words of others cannot fully explain exactly what you did.

Paul in PA

I didn't sleep well last night so maybe I don't understand the subject.

You are still tasked with accepting or discarding the location of the monument found. If you accept it simply state the date and/or recording information of the plat that set it. Why would it need an adjective presumably giving it more weight?

At least once I've used the term Completion Survey when discussing the establishment of interior corners that were not set by the original survey. Whether or not they were dependent or independent would be a function of the records available of the survey itself that established, say a center of section.

Dykes v Arnold is a pretty good example of honoring a PLSS corner that was established after the GLO (or BLM, or USGS) completed their survey of the exterior of the sections. As to the authority with which the corner was established, we need only to look to the BLM itself and some of their current (2001) publications:

Individual State Authority. "After title to land has passed from the public domain into private ownership, jurisdiction over the property, including survey authority, passes to the State. Every State has laws which govern land surveying practices."

Literally speaking, and solid with my opinions, once land leaves the public domain it is the responsibility of the "civil" (or State) surveyor to maintain, restore or complete the surveys of the PLSS. Those corners previously established by local surveyors should have the same weight and authority of an original government monument; it's position is not an arguable point. One glaring problem we have as State surveyors is producing records of those "Completion Surveys". But for myself, a lack of pedigree is no reason to attempt to re-establish a land corner "by the book" when there is an existing monument with serious occupational evidence of reliance. Trying to reset a center of section in an attempt to "correct the math" when a monument is in place is no difference than ignoring an existing original monument, imho.

I believe you'll discover in Chapter 6, the recovered monument is termed a "local corner." Simply state the evidence that describes the monument along with the collateral evidence that shows the monument has been relied upon in good faith to establish the corner.

JBS

A local respected survey around here used to preach "First Corners". His line was "A first survey is the first survey to establish the field location of a corner at some time after the first deed of conveyance has been executed. In order for this monument to control ...it must be established using acceptable surveying practices, procedures and accuracies." Kind of a "first one there wins" type thing (with the caveat that it needs to fit the 1/6000 precision called for in "The Manual".

He liked to refer to corners that aren't necessarily the original but one that has apparently been relied upon by local surveys as the "corner of common report". He would possibly differentiate between that and the "original".

I like that idea of "first corner". Of course I am hearing from John, that the bigger test is if the monument has been relied upon in good faith. That makes sense to me as well. I am sure there are complications that can crop up from both of these basic doctrines.

It is often difficult to establish which monument is the 'first one' and you have to use your best professional judgement in the case of multiple monuments. Also, it can be difficult to determine exactly which one has been "relied upon in good faith". In the case of multiple monuments @ one corner location, I could imagine a scenario of each one of the monuments set in the ground being "relied upon" by someone. I don't imagine a monument would have been driven in the same general location unless the surveyor was on his/her way to set some property corners.

I was raised up under Doyle's "first surveyor" theory. It sounds good from a surveyor's perspective. There are a couple of problems with it, however. First, there is no such theory ever espoused by the courts that I've ever been able to find. It's biggest issue is the precision test for acceptance or rejection. There simply is no such test found in any legal principle. Second, the theory focuses the surveyor's attention upon what surveyors have done, instead of what the landowners have done. There is no boundary principle which gives a surveyor any authority to create a boundary or to establish a boundary. That right is always reserved for the landowners.

We miss the point of the law entirely. The evidence which proves the corner is always evidence of what the owners have done before, during or after the surveyor has come and gone. It is the landowner who creates the boundary (before or after the survey) and it is the landowners (grantor and grantee or subsequent purchasers) whose actions establish the boundary (and thereby the corner). It's all about the good faith effort to physically monument the corner and the subsequent acceptance of the monuments as intended to mark the corner. The courts really don't even care if a surveyor ever entered the scene. That's always the evidence which we're expected to gather and to document when retracing an established boundary.

The same line of reasoning applies to what we call "original monuments" as it does for a "local corner" or a "corner of common report" or a corner by any other name. The thing we must learn to look for (after we've recovered the monument) is the evidence of good faith reliance upon that monument to establish the boundary. The evidence is found in one of three forms: 1) documentary evidence, 2) demonstrative evidence, or 3) testimonial evidence. It's our responsibility to gather all three until we are satisfied that the "best available evidence" establishes the fact that the boundary has or has not been established. If it has, then we've proven the monument(s) which control the boundary. Document the evidence and your conclusion.

JBS

In law cases the court always says that "Farmer Brown surveyed his land by employing Surveyor Smith". It's never "Surveyor Smith surveyed Farmer Brown's land".

Current project falls into this discussion. Gubmit surveyors did the section perimeter in 1865. No center corner set. In 1871, the County Surveyor set a small stone for the center corner per the Manual in effect at that time. Over time all of the perimeter monuments now in existence were set by some surveyor working on whatever his project might have been and normally involving an adjoining section, not this one. The 1865 monuments were what is called stake and pits. Roads were built along all of the section boundaries in the 1870's-1880's. No record of anything having been set to replace the obliterated stake and pits. So, now it is 2015, and all monuments around the section are non-original. I check where Mother Math would say the corner should be using those modern replacement monuments. The answer falls 2 feet west and 5 feet north of a tree used as a corner post with old fences running to the east, north and south from it. Remnant of old tree line to west lines up with that position as well. So, do I use the tree/corner post that clearly demonstrates possession and probably matches the location set by the County Surveyor in 1871 using the original monuments or do I set a bar to make Mother Math happy?

Holy Cow, post: 341222, member: 50 wrote: ....The answer falls 2 feet west and 5 feet north of a tree used as a corner post with old fences running to the east, north and south from it. Remnant of old tree line to west lines up with that position as well. So, do I use the tree/corner post that clearly demonstrates possession and probably matches the location set by the County Surveyor in 1871 using the original monuments or do I set a bar to make Mother Math happy?

2' by 5'....not bad at all. I've always said "if you can jump the distance, don't worry about it.." I can almost guarantee the one place the corner WASN'T at is where the math places it.

Apparently the 1871 "small stone" has been obliterated at the C/4. Barring any newly discovered evidence, my shot would probably be that the tree/corner post is the best available evidence of the location of the 1871 corner. Being of a contrary nature, I would definitely first make it look like a drunk badger had visited the base of the tree and post...ANY evidence of a perpetuation of the old County Surveyor's work would be just icing on the cake. Mother Math and I usually agree to disagree.

Interesting tid-bit about center corners from the 1870's: I have found in the notes where (for various reasons) the original survey did set a C/4, although it definitely was not standard procedure. Sometimes it is as ambiguous as "set post at center corner of section". More than once I have read where the center was set "at a mid-point between opposing east and west 1/4 corners, per special instructions" . I have not ever looked into enough to even tell you what the Manual in effect at that time has to say about it, and I've never been able to come up with whatever they called their "special instructions". But apparently the brg-brg intersect method might not have their first choice....;-)

Tom Adams, post: 341204, member: 7285 wrote: A local respected survey around here used to preach "First Corners". His line was "A first survey is the first survey to establish the field location of a corner at some time after the first deed of conveyance has been executed. In order for this monument to control ...it must be established using acceptable surveying practices, procedures and accuracies." Kind of a "first one there wins" type thing (with the caveat that it needs to fit the 1/6000 precision called for in "The Manual".

He liked to refer to corners that aren't necessarily the original but one that has apparently been relied upon by local surveys as the "corner of common report". He would possibly differentiate between that and the "original".

I like that idea of "first corner". Of course I am hearing from John, that the bigger test is if the monument has been relied upon in good faith. That makes sense to me as well. I am sure there are complications that can crop up from both of these basic doctrines.

It is often difficult to establish which monument is the 'first one' and you have to use your best professional judgement in the case of multiple monuments. Also, it can be difficult to determine exactly which one has been "relied upon in good faith". In the case of multiple monuments @ one corner location, I could imagine a scenario of each one of the monuments set in

Holy Cow, post: 341222, member: 50 wrote: Current project falls into this discussion. Gubmit surveyors did the section perimeter in 1865. No center corner set. In 1871, the County Surveyor set a small stone for the center corner per the Manual in effect at that time. Over time all of the perimeter monuments now in existence were set by some surveyor working on whatever his project might have been and normally involving an adjoining section, not this one. The 1865 monuments were what is called stake and pits. Roads were built along all of the section boundaries in the 1870's-1880's. No record of anything having been set to replace the obliterated stake and pits. So, now it is 2015, and all monuments around the section are non-original. I check where Mother Math would say the corner should be using those modern replacement monuments. The answer falls 2 feet west and 5 feet north of a tree used as a corner post with old fences running to the east, north and south from it. Remnant of old tree line to west lines up with that position as well. So, do I use the tree/corner post that clearly demonstrates possession and probably matches the location set by the County Surveyor in 1871 using the original monuments or do I set a bar to make Mother Math happy?

Time for my all time favorite...
Correct is an identity, not a distance.
Tidy numbers make us feel better. Our emotional comfort does not appear in derived list of the order of calls. I am certain this is preaching to the choir...

thebionicman, post: 341261, member: 8136 wrote: Tidy numbers make us feel better. Our emotional comfort does not appear in derived list of the order of calls. I am certain this is preaching to the choir...

"The fact that one surveyor's interpretation of the original survey results in a tidier or neater package, however, does not suffice, of itself, to override the intent of the original surveyor"

Ski Roundtop, Inc. v. Wagerman, 556 A.2d 1144 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1989)

I follow what you are saying JB, one point is that the monuments in the ground are evidence to consider in everything you are saying.

My point is that you can't arbitrarily discount the "first corner". If a boundary has ripened based on that first corner location, it seems like it could trump subsequent corners.

I simply am pointing out that when we consider all evidence, we don't go overboard in sweeping the ground monumentation under the rug. That, too, is evidence of what has transpired and what has been accepted at some point in time.

2' x 5' ? sounds like you know the answer to this one.........

paden cash, post: 341255, member: 20 wrote: 2' by 5'....not bad at all. I've always said "if you can jump the distance, don't worry about it.." I can almost guarantee the one place the corner WASN'T at is where the math places it.

Exactly right. I have always felt that if properties have been established off of where that corner goes, there virtually must be some kind of evidence that gets you close to where the corner once was. I would always be hard-pressed to proportion in a corner after property has left the public domain.

I have not ever looked into enough to even tell you what the Manual in effect at that time has to say about it, and I've never been able to come up with whatever they called their "special instructions". But apparently the brg-brg intersect method might not have their first choice....;-)

I much prefer to look @ the original notes regardless of what manual they were "working under". If a county surveyor or a private surveyor set a corner I believe it is my duty to figure out where it was originally set. (And I'm not discounting what JB is saying above, I am just referring to how to re-establish original corners)

I'm in 100% agreement with you Tom. We can't arbitrarily discount any corner monument without considering the evidence. The monuments (original or first) were set there for a reason and reflect the intent of the owners. If they don't, then the surveyor has seriously misunderstood their duty as the landowner's intent is paramount.

Landowner intent is pretty easy to discover. Instead, we find it easier to guess the intent of the surveyor instead. The evidence of subsequent occupation coupled with testimonial evidence and documentation will usually tell the tale. I want to know what the landowners did after the surveyor left. That's the evidence that will establish the boundary.

JBS

Surveyors always have to remember who we work for; the landowners.

We aren't survey for other surveyors.
I'm always amazed when I hear that an old corner doesn't fit some accuracy requirement as if that invalidates it.

It's the professional responsibility of the surveyor to meet that standard, it's not the responsibility of the landowner.

Tom Adams, post: 341271, member: 7285 wrote: I would always be hard-pressed to proportion in a corner after property has left the public domain.

I am working on a property where this is something that has been done.

There's an unreferenced 2" iron pipe that lands right in the vicinity of the occupation lines. It also fits old property deeds and also some county road deeds. But, since no maps could be found to give that corner any credentials, another surveyor used the Manual of Survey Instruction procedures to establish the section corner over 100' east.

I don't disagree that the newly established corner follows the Manual's procedure quite well. However, I disagree with using that position to establish the boundary of private ownership. Those lands passed from the public domain long ago.

Something that a lot of people forget is the Manual tells us that proportioning is a "last resort" when there is no other evidence available. Existing 2" pipes and a string of descriptions, deeds and occupation should hardly be considered " no other available evidence ".

Some folks just like to get out and play with their calculators and Manuals. And in the process ultimately disregarding the bona fide rights of multiple property owners.

I've said it before and I'll reiterate; the one place I CAN tell you the original corner WASN'T AT is the mathematically proportioned point...

Absolutely correct in my humble opinion. Properties that call to the Section corner and have been staked in the ground bear witness to where that now-missing corner once was. The controlling corner is therefore "obliterated" but not lost.

Remember, too, that there was a better chance that the original monuments were still in when old property corners were staked. At least it was prior to you being out there.