Does anyone have a clean copy of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the above cited case? From the District Court of Reeves County, 109th Judicial District.
I have a copy that has been mimeographed and Xeroxed so many times it is hard to read.
Loving County
Champlin called for 1900 varas (5277.78 ft) to the section on the original field notes along the north block line and called to pass Clark's Texas-New Mexico boundary monument No. 27 at 1550 varas west of the northwest corner of the 3rd section.
No original, called for monuments have ever been discovered other than Clark's monument No. 27.
How do you justify placing the northeast corner of the block at 7252.4 varas (20145.56 ft) from monument No. 27 instead of the called cumulative distance of 7250 varas (20138.9 feet)?
Corwin
Sure, it's only 6.66 feet but then again it is 6.66 feet. And worse, if you keep up with the additional 2.22 feet per section to re-establish the next 6 sections east for Block 34 and the next 6 sections for PSL Block 76 well, then your're 33.33 feet out of position than if you held the called 1900 varas.
But, I forget Corwin didn't call for 1900 varas to the mile. He described the entire Block as 6 miles by 8 miles and apparently never broke down the sections on his office survey so the last 6 miles would be re-established at 5280 instead of 5277.78.
I have it, don't know how to attach it here, but I'll email it tomorrow.
Did you here Newton's Blk. 76 got cancelled?
OBTW, 1900v is 5280 if that was the original intention (recent board decision)and Clark 27 has never been proven, that pipe is not what Clark called for and may not be 27 (probably not) and a recent discovery may be the "real 27", closer to where it should have been and not way south and east.