A lovely 6" x 12" sandstone with the top three inches below the surface.?ÿ It was placed there in 1883 by the County Engineer/Surveyor.?ÿ We went to where four tree rows/fence rows converged and found a corner post that had completed rotted off and was hollow.?ÿ A couple of feet to the north was one taking its place.?ÿ We started digging by where the rotten one had been and within a minute we found this beauty, standing vertical.
A bit later we were surprised to find a stone at the quarter-quarter corner to the west of center.?ÿ I had no record in hand saying it existed.?ÿ It was about two feet from the midpoint of our quarter section line.?ÿ It was sticking up about four inches or we might not have even looked for it.?ÿ It matched possession very well.?ÿ This was an important find as the property is the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 30.?ÿ The record line from the center to the west quarter corner is 2.5 chains short of the standard 40 chains, so the northeast corner of Lot 3 should have been 1.25 chains further to the west of the stone found.?ÿ Possession along the south section line also falls at the midpoint instead of matching the record.?ÿ Time to head back to the courthouse to follow the full chain back on the entire quarter section.
?ÿ
Great find!
The first stone I ever found while surveying was with you. We found a limestone, on edge, 3" wide by 12" long and sticking out of the ground about 6" with a "cross" cut in the top of it. It was on the east side of 169 highway, just south of the 169/54 intersection.?ÿ
Isn't the mind amazing! You know exactly where that stone was years ago, but probably don't remember what you did 3 days ago without re-assembling a bunch of clues.
That is so true of surveyors.?ÿ Yesterday we were digging for a handful of corners that I had recovered in the past.?ÿ One of them was from 1991.?ÿ That's 31 years ago.?ÿ I told my helper it would be about eight inches deep and a half inch bar.?ÿ I had recovered it on an extremely hot and dry day in July.?ÿ The ground had been like concrete.?ÿ He went down about three inches and found a 60d nail.?ÿ We pulled the nail and had a strong signal.?ÿ Went down eight inches and found the half inch bar.?ÿ DO, another surveyor had been there since my last visit.?ÿ I'm betting he stopped digging on his December day and set the 60d above the signal.?ÿ His distance and mine differed by 0.05.
I posted once about an uncalled for stone at the center of section that fit 3 of 4 - 80 year occupations. Also found another midway between center and west quarter fitting occupation. The center stone position was 30 x 25 ft. from intersecting lines where there was a more recent monument fitting nothing except the rule for subdividing. What would you do? I know what I did. btw, the fence running south to north was essentially on magnetic north 80 years ago and 40 chains north of the south quarter. So it was not set in accordance with the federal?ÿ instructions for subdivision in place at that time. However in many cases it was the standard of local practice.?ÿ
Math comes in far down the list of priorities in land surveying when determining facts.?ÿ Case in point:?ÿ On Sunday?ÿ we had the NE cor and NW cor as found bars used on prior surveys.?ÿ The midpoint of a straight line fell 56 feet north and eight feet west of the actual N 1/4 based on evidence, including a road record from about 1880 stating the road was to be centered on the north section line with an evident bend in the road at that point..
In that same section, we also had the SW cor used on prior surveys.?ÿ The midpoint of that line was nearly three hundred feet south and 20 feet west of the W 1/4 based on evidence, including a road record from about 1875 stating the road was to centered on the west section line.
@bill93 I can't remember what I had for lunch, but I have walked straight to traverse nails that I set years ago.
This comment fits right in with another thread about "What does a note like this mean to you."
My post starting this thread shows a sandstone found at the center corner of Section 30.?ÿ I mentioned that we found a stone approximately midway from the center corner to the west quarter corner.?ÿ Being a Section 30 results in a "perfect" east half of the southwest quarter and Lots 3 & 4 to the west of that.?ÿ The east-west distance is roughly 2.5 chains short of the standard 40 chain measurement.?ÿ That is 165 feet short.?ÿ Thus the northeast of Lot 3 and the southeast of Lot 4 should be about 82.5 feet west of a midpoint.
Went back to the courthouse today to discover the patent to the original owner described as "The southwest quarter of Section 30."?ÿ It did not say Lots 3 and 4 and the east half of said southwest quarter.?ÿ This was about 1867.?ÿ In 1871 the owner of the entirety sold the east half.?ÿ Then in 1877 he sold the west half.?ÿ In both deeds mention is made of "containing 80 acres, more or less, per the Government survey."?ÿ Horsefeathers!?ÿ The Government Field Notes clearly indicate a 10 acre shortage or 150 acres total.?ÿ HOWEVER, I found the 1877 survey setting that lovely center corner stone and cutting the southwest quarter into two nearly identical halves by setting the stone we found at the midpoint and one that we will attempt to recover in the middle of the county road on the south using a County backhoe and operator.
I AM NOT going to declare those stones to be 1.83 feet South 23-18-59 East of the calculated midpoint corner?ÿ They are the true corners.
My guess is; this is why they pay us the BIG BUCKS!
Perhaps I should fall back on the myth that all east-west lines are actually curves and declare the north-south error to be due to this fact.
Not at your latitude. Maybe Point Barrow, nut I haven't calculated it there.
This comment fits right in with another thread about "What does a note like this mean to you."
My post starting this thread shows a sandstone found at the center corner of Section 30.?ÿ I mentioned that we found a stone approximately midway from the center corner to the west quarter corner.?ÿ Being a Section 30 results in a "perfect" east half of the southwest quarter and Lots 3 & 4 to the west of that.?ÿ The east-west distance is roughly 2.5 chains short of the standard 40 chain measurement.?ÿ That is 165 feet short.?ÿ Thus the northeast of Lot 3 and the southeast of Lot 4 should be about 82.5 feet west of a midpoint.
Went back to the courthouse today to discover the patent to the original owner described as "The southwest quarter of Section 30."?ÿ It did not say Lots 3 and 4 and the east half of said southwest quarter.?ÿ This was about 1867.?ÿ In 1871 the owner of the entirety sold the east half.?ÿ Then in 1877 he sold the west half.?ÿ In both deeds mention is made of "containing 80 acres, more or less, per the Government survey."?ÿ Horsefeathers!?ÿ The Government Field Notes clearly indicate a 10 acre shortage or 150 acres total.?ÿ HOWEVER, I found the 1877 survey setting that lovely center corner stone and cutting the southwest quarter into two nearly identical halves by setting the stone we found at the midpoint and one that we will attempt to recover in the middle of the county road on the south using a County backhoe and operator.
I AM NOT going to declare those stones to be 1.83 feet South 23-18-59 East of the calculated midpoint corner?ÿ They are the true corners.
I had a Survey like that??I concluded that in the context of the PLSS the south half of the NW1/4 of Section 1 is not equal to the north half. The GLO even occasionally used aliquot descriptions for government lots while citing the lot acreage. The difference was about 6 feet.
I got my reasoning from a Kansas case to that effect.
I would say your case is the exception to the rule because monuments were set showing a clear intention to split the quarter equally.
Yes, the Kansas Case is from Harvey County.?ÿ Agreed that this is an exception to the general rule.?ÿ You have found the property line, due to the permanent survey.?ÿ The correct description? Another discussion.
@steve-brosemer I found it because it distinguishes Wood v. Mandrilla, 167 Cal. 607 (1914).
In Wood the Court found the descriptions divided the southwest quarter of Section 30 into equal halves.?ÿ The Government Plat is an older one without Government Lots shown so they ignored the single line through the quarter with an "80" in the east half.
Hoyne v. Schneider, 138 Kan. 545 (1933) involves a newer Plat with Government Lots so the Court distinguished Wood on this and other reasons.
The Survey I mentioned was on a newer Plat with Government Lots so I thought the reasoning in Hoyne applied and the reasoning in Wood did not.?ÿ Also Wood has been mostly ignored in California.?ÿ It's only been cited in a few cases in other areas of law.
Courts almost never make absolute or bright line rules.
Say a Court rules that the 50 foot R/W is exactly 50.00 wide.?ÿ The next case is similar, that Court will say the same, right? Not necessarily, they may follow the first case, they may say the rule in the first case is a good rule but the facts here are different so the rule does not apply (refered to as "distingishing a case").?ÿ On rare occasion they may overrule themselves and delete or modify the rule.
Then there is the "absurd result" rule.?ÿ Suppose the Courts in a State consistently hold the monuments on the R/W control.?ÿ Suppose a neat row of monuments are found all within a tenth or so except one is 5 feet into the lot.?ÿ The Court will likely use the "absurd result" exception in that case.
It is always dangerous to follow a single case or single text book.?ÿ Multiple cases help to develop understanding of what various fact scenarios lead to.
