From Vaughan v. Knowlton, 112 Cal. 151 (1896):
"There being no evidence tending to show that any different line had ever been run upon the ground than the one indicated by the old stakes found at "B" and "C," and that line being approximately in the center of the section, it should be taken, in the absence of all other evidence, as the half-section line."
"It is true there was no direct evidence that the line contended for by plaintiff was an authorized survey, but the fact of its close correspondence to the actual center line of the section, and the presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the line, if run, was so run as to divide the section in two equal parts, is sufficient to require a reversal of the judgment. We come to this conclusion with the less hesitation because the question of boundaries of land is important, and should be fairly and finally settled and fixed, to the end that further disputes and litigation shall be avoided." Vaughan v. Knowlton, 112 Cal. 151 (1896)
JBS
Just curious...
What then as regards previously unestablished aliquot lines located 1/4 mile north/south/east/west of such held mid-section line(s)?
For example:
Would an "innocent" land owner -- one who was not an adjoiner to the held mid-section line, and who was not a party to the creation/establishment of the held mid-section line -- be required to suffer, in the event the held mid-section line were to locate his property line in a position such that he lost land? In other words...does this create a new center section corner to be used for future subdividing the Section?
Also, what effect would it (held mid-section lines) have in regards to previously established aliquot lines? Specifically, what if an old fence line fits a breakdown based on straight mid-section lines? If doing a new survey, complete with the setting of new monumentation, would the boundary be based on the held mid-section line(s), and with the fence simply shown as evidence of possession?
Finally, when surveying an aliquot boundary not adjacent to a mid-section line, in addition to the original control corners does this imply that PLSS surveyors are also responsible for center section corners too? And, if so what if you find them not in agreement with straight mid-line intersections?
It's all in chapter 6.
>6-45. Once a local point of control is accepted in an official survey it has all the authority and significance of an original corner. The influence of such points is combined with that of the previously identified original corners in making final adjustments of the temporary points.
>The acceptance of duly qualified and locally recognized points of control should verify the public land surveys, simplify resurveys, and avoid conflicting lines that differ only slightly in location. In this manner flexibility will be introduced in the plan of the dependent resurvey, at least to the extent of protecting satisfactory local actions in reliance on evidence of the original survey.
>6-46. The surveyor cannot abandon the record of the original survey in favor of an indiscriminate adoption of points not reconcilable with it. However, many situations will arise where locally accepted lines are in substantial agreement with evidence of the original survey, although without testimony or record evidence relating to the original survey. Where this circumstance is found, it is often better to accept a position based upon local interpretation rather than to disturb satisfactory existing conditions. The surveyor will endeavor to avoid disturbing the position of locally recognized lines when such action may adversely affect improvements, again, provided that there is substantial agreement with the evidence of the original survey. At the same time the surveyor must use extreme caution in adopting local points of control. These may range from authentic perpetuations of original corners down to marks that were never intended to be more than approximations. The surveyor must consider all these factors.
>Chief among this class of evidence forming the basis of recognized positions of land boundaries are; recorded monuments established by local surveyors and duly agreed upon by interested property owners; the position of boundary fences determined in the same manner; and the lines of public roads, drainage or irrigation ditches, and timber cutting lines; when intended to be located with reference to the original subdivisional lines. The local record in these cases, when available, may furnish evidence of the original survey. If a point qualifies for acceptance, having satisfied the requirement for substantial agreement with evidence of the original survey, the presumption is strong that its position bears satisfactory relation to the original survey and the burden of proof to the contrary must be borne by the party claiming differently. Points that so qualify must be accepted as the best available evidence of the true position of the original survey.
JBS
Good thing it's not easy. Then everyone would be doing it.
I'm pretty sure the "Capt. Healey" mentioned is California LS1.
