Topic for discussion

Non-license here, but I would assume either, Smith (heirs) still own it or maybe the owners of NE4SE4 have unwritten rights to it, depending? Stuff like this is pretty interesting to me, thank you for posting it.

Unless signs of occupation or use exist, it is safe to assume that Smith didn't intend to keep the triangle.

Mr. or Ms. Smith had no desire to keep an interest in the property. If they had, it would have been reserved. At least that is the law in the 2 states my shingle is applicable in. The title companies around here will also likely agree and more relevant, provide insurance for the triangle.

Clearly, the corpse of Mr Smith will have to quitclaim the triangle.

Maybe sell it for taxes, to the Hwy dpmt. Of course, if it went through a tax sale, somebody might buy it for sign space.

N

Silly opiners.?ÿ The answer is to move the quarter-quarter section line south eight feet.?ÿ Problem solved. ???œ ???œ ???œ?ÿ

@holy-cow?ÿ

It's fair to say that the Sectional breakdown isn't based on 8 solidly placed and recovered stone monuments. Two stones have been found over the years, the other positions are prorates (2), county road records (2) and old subdivision plats (2), the C1/4 was in a field and reset some years ago using a math position.

So moving, kinking the 1/16th line............

Change the line widths so nobody will see it. ?????ÿ

Didn't the deed for the NE SE have a qualifier N of the RR in it? If it did, it would indicate intent N of RR in the E 1/2 SE based on 100 years of establishment. If it didn't, it would indicated the conveyance identified the 40 line to be the RR ROW line based on 100 years of establishment.?ÿ The 40 line would control the boundary between the RR and the N subdivision, not any other 40's. Government rules for subdivision of sections don't control what land owners did 100 years ago.?ÿ

May be and may be not.?ÿ The RR r-o-w was most likely set at a certain offset from wherever the railroad rails were set regardless of where that happened to cross an aliquot line.?ÿ I had a similar tract come up in a survey several years ago.?ÿ The adjoiner had actually filed a quit claim deed to the little triangle to clear things up.?ÿ I believe it read something like: Being that part of the southeast quarter of (section something), if any, lying north of the Attaboy Railroad in said quarter section.

@norm?ÿ

The RR in this area was left out of the patents. The RR occupied the ground long before any patents were issued. When the patents were granted later they made no mention of the RR and it was years after that when some efforts were attempted to resolve this omission. Deeds were crafted for the RR that had been operating for 25 years or more and it's been a cluster to say the least.

No, the grant of the NE4SE4 did not except out the RR.?ÿ

@mightymoe?ÿ

That changes things. I'll yield to the thick line.?ÿ