I would invoke Justice Potter of the supreme court. I can't define a monument but I know it when I see it.
In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... ut I know it when I see it ..."
To me, to qualify as an artificial monument it would need to meet some very basic requirements. Is there a record associated with it being placed and has it been accepted as representing a boundary divide. The material and condition are irrelevant. Many original corners in older subdivisions here were hub and tack, some just a scribed stick of spruce, others a cedar post or a chiseled x in a rock. Without some degree of provenance and acceptance, it doesn't necessarily carry any weight. I don't believe any artificial 'monument' can exist completely free of the context in which it was set and agreed upon.?ÿ
@bill93 So who would be an expert? An attorney or a surveyor?
In Idaho we had 100 plus years between GLO and recording. The same is true in many places, along with those who still don't require it. While a record is helpful it is not a must.
I may have confused the issue with my question (What constitutes a monument). I would have assumed that the rebar, monument or not, marking a boundary line, even though uncapped, would be considered illegal to remove. The main question was whether the lath adjacent to it served any marking purpose other than to announce more easily, the existance of the rebar.
I've seen such lath (or similar wood stakes) all over the woods around here, in various states of dis-repair over the years. It's sounding like the question of legality of touching, moving or otherwise disturbing those would result in the answer: "It depends".
Do I see another orange rebar under the grass to the right of the protruding rebar?
It appears also the the protruding rebar has string tied to it, as if someone could have set the rebar for the purpose of stretching string to mark the boundary line.
@thebionicman I guess ??instrument??, recorded or not, would have been a better choice of word over record, implying it was recorded. Some document that would support the existence of a ??monument??. Random iron pipes with no connection to the cadaster wouldn??t qualify as a monument, unless something different can be shown to give it context.
@alan-roberts There can be only one monument, but many accessories.?ÿ Don't forget that many "to" calls in boundary descriptions are also "monuments", i.e. "to the center of the creek."?ÿ See Wattles.
I wish.?ÿ It was exhibited at an event and I think belongs to the Surveyors Historical Society. I've seen one another place that was theirs.
@gordon-svedberg No, that's just some paint. I see what you mean though...It almost looks like a Nail with a center point.
@gordon-svedberg Also, that's correct: There is string tied on it for exactly that purpose. The only strange thing is, all the other points on the line set by the surveyor are nails set flush; only this one point is re-bar (with a reveal). It may be that someone removed the nail, replaced it with re-bar for the purposes of running the string line. Don't know without seeing the survey. I'm assuming the surveyor would be specific as to what was set (nail or rebar, with reveal noted properly).
There are numerous ways to support the validity of a monument without a document.?ÿ
