This is a question that has to do with Sectionalized land, in the Public Land Survey System. (PLSS)
OK, I have surveyed a whole Section. To make a long story short, the 1/16 corner, that is 1/2 way between the S1/4 cor, and the C-1/4 corner is a Pipe that has been there a long time. It is 10' east, and 25' too far south, of where it should have been set.
But, it has been there a long time, and accepted, and used. I am going to yield to it.
OK.
Now, HOW do I establish the C1/4? do I use the S Center 1/16 to tweek the C1/4 East?
This is the solution that I TEND towards:
Or do I run from the S1/4 corner, 1/4 mi north, Yield to the Existing pipe, then angle back to the C1/4 established by BB int, via the Connecting 1/4 corners?
And this is why I lean that way:
The general theory is that the whole section is a Protracted Subdivision. With a legal structure, whereby ALL the interior 1/16 corners were ESTABLISHED by the GLO, in 1840, during the original survey.
Thank you for your time.
Nate
As a second question, a corollary, Do I use the PIPE at the south center 1/16, to set the 1/16 corners 1/4 mile east, and 1/4 mile west? Those would be the Center of the SE1/4, and the center of the SW1/4 respectively. OR would I hold the theoretical one, to establish the centers of the SE and SW quarters of this section?
This discussion is intended to bring forward the idea of USING 2 positions for the same point. ie, the computed one, to compute the rest of the section, and then yielding to the local one, or unifying them into ONE, so as to ONLY use one point, and if yielded to, to use it to compute the rest of the section.
My thinking is that OTHER landowners should NOT be affected by that squirrely corner, that I chose to yield to, for that SPECIFIC local position, when they do not own contiguous land to the squirrely corner!
Again, thanks for your time.
"So many corners, so little time"
simper fi!
Nate
Before I could decide I would need to know what, if anything,was at the 'accepted' and occupied corners at the C/4, etc.
The only way I would use a corner as an aloquot corner (use it to calc the interior boundaries) was if I had hard recorded evidence that it was actually set for that location. If there is no other evidence, I would use the 'math' to calculate the rest of the corners.
There are 2 NS fences at the C1/4. They are about 10 feet apart.
For the sake of discussion, we should treat it as though there is nothing there. Just confusion. No monuments.
Nate
Are there any other property monuments in the S 1/2 that indicate whether the C-S 1/16 corner was used? If not, I would most likely use the math positions and the 'deviant' accepted monument.
There are some mons on the line going north from it... for several hundred feet. I expect to yield to do exactly what you said: "I would most likely use the math positions and the 'deviant' accepted monument."
One of the principles of surveying that I like was given to me, by another surveyor, who said that "we should investigate every solution, and use the most professional, and justicable one."
N
Punt!!!!!!! Maybe a surprise quick kick.
We can offer all sorts of answers, but, yours is the neck on the chopping block.
I would research everything until I was blue in the face before choosing either of the main options.
You have two solutions that you could justify in court. Did the GLO actually set those corners? Most likely not. The 1/16 corner could be held as an accepted corner per lines of occupation or acceptance of land owners and not the "true" (using loosly) 1/16 corner. We have become expert measurers and not investigators. The C 1/4 could be a matter of land owners agreeing to the corner location as there are no lines of occupation and little evidence. Again I believe you have two solutions that could be correct and defendable in court to the c 1/4 location.
If the GLO did indeed subdivide this section, and you are using this C-S 1/16 monument as the best available evidence, it should hold full control over the breakdown of the section (distribute the error). The question is how the GLO established this position, normal section breakdown? Or by the three-mile method, which would be an east-west proportion based on the original record.
Would you regard it as a careful and faithful perpetuation based on the monuments' age and use?
Is this type of error typical between bonafide originals or accepted local conditions in your terrain?
If the GLO did not establish this position in the original survey and it is sombody's best guess, then the difference between this mon and the statuatory position should be settled in court.
I know the masses are divided on this sort of conundrum.
Tough decision!
How close is close enough!?
The GLO did not set the S C-1/16. A county Surveyor did, in the 1970's. He did not use proper method. My dad, also a PLS later USED this monument, to survey a pc of land just NW of it. Then, a yr or two ago, somebody else used it to survey land NE of it. Now, I am surveying land NE of it. My survey then goes 1/2 mi north, and 1980' east, and has a number of things it needs to do.
My point is that it is fairly well entrenched.
Nate
This C-S 1/16 for may or may not be in the correct position. Consider that whoever set may (probably) did it from different controlling corners than you found. Uh-oh now you should back-search for the monuments he used to establish that corner. That might mean looking for another s-1/4 for or a different c-1/4 for. If you accept the C-S 1/16 for Mon., Consider using it to establish your c 1/4 cor. If you think it an acceptable Mon., then it produces a bend in the line, and it should be used in the intersect line for the c-1/4 cor. But other evidence should also be considered for the c1/4 cor. ... look @All evidence and talk to adjoining owners.
The County Surveyor came from the point 1/4 mi west, and set it at 1320'. No, not proper procedure, but that is best I can tell, right now.
The S 1/4 corner is in. I think it is probably an original. Much occupation has been made, to the NW of this S C-1/16. I'm acquiescing to it. Yielding to it. But, for the C1/4, I think proper BB int will be used. This will kink the NS center sec line.
N
> If the GLO did not establish this position in the original survey and it is sombody's best guess, then the difference between this mon and the statuatory position should be settled in court.
>
To quote D Karoly:
"Gee, why even hire a surveyor?"
Better to save the money and have the lawyers find your boundaries.
Try this: good reading
Brian,
that was a good read! Thank you. I really need to be reading more court cases on a consistent basis! Its hard to argue with court decisions. I am a slow reader so they are painful but extremely helpful.
I also agree that a center 1/4 relied upon for over 100 years and halfway related to original evidence would beg you to accept it!
Time for a monkey wrench:
This court case mentions a patent, "The first grant of land in section 12 to private ownership was made in 1876". Should this aliquot part description be bounded by the half correct C1/4 established in 1899?
What if the Federal Gov't still owned a 1/4 of the sec. being adversely affected? Or, an Indian Allotee(s)?
Nate,
kind of sounds like your stuck between your dad and a hard place! Would this C-S 1/16 be considered one of the first "original" monuments breaking this section down? What about corresponding deeds to the parcels surrounding this monument and the C 1/4? What about roads, fences or easements before 1970?
If you do accept this monument, I would think it holds full control over the breakdown or you just put a "cloud" of suspicion around it for future surveyors to contemplate and argue with you about.
Better you than me. Good luck!
Ahhhh..Welcome to my world!
I have one section where for one quarter the intersection of two fences has been used for most all of the surveys while for the other quarters it's the BB position. In another, an incorrect monument was located for a large plat in one quarter and the subdivision used for this plat was then used by many, if not all the other surveys in that quarter. The platting surveyor found his mistake some years later and created a new breakdown and then used that for surveys in the rest of the section.
I used to work in a county where very few center of section or 1/16th corners had been set, but back about 8 years ago moved to and area where it is quite common. And by set, I do not mean by GLO but rather as part of some survey of a parcel for which it is the corner. I always go looking first at why it was set and how it has been relied on.
I'll see a section sub line in a developed area where due to platting requirements the the road cl into the plat is monumented at it's intersection with the main road, which is the section line. There may be mons like these every 300-600 feet and I have seen some surveyors go mon to mon to mon for the section line. I do not buy it. I show the section line and if I show those mons I show how far off the line they are and hold them only for the entering road cl.
Same with bars and pipes set as 1/16th corners. If the were set at calculated breakdown positions, I'll hold it for the properties that it was set for or directly effects, but likely not for section sub purposes unless I see evidence that it has been widely accepted or used for that.
Nate,
We've discussed this many times...it is all in the timing. Do you remember a certain Center 1/4 corner that PLS690 used? He did a technical breakdown and set the C-N1/16 but then yielded to the existing pineknot for the C1/4 corner...remember?
I point you to [msg=85196]another discussion[/msg]
DDSM:beer:
If the gov't plat is 1840. The method of setting the center 1/4 was laid out by the Land Ordinance of 1834. The position was to be set on a west to east split between the west and east quarter corners. The intersection of the 1/4 corners was mention in letters written from GLO to Deputy surveyors in 1858. Abraham Lincoln gave an opinion on this in 1859. The first manual it appeared in was 1864. For what it is worth.
Interesting, and I should probably know the answer to this but it does not come up here as the vast majority of the GLO surveys were circa 1870-1880, does not this only apply if the GLO surveyor set the center of section?
If it was never set o, calculated by the GLO for some odd reason, then the method of breakdown would be whatever is the currently proscribed method? This seems correct since following the instructions is part of re-surveying and you cannot re-survey something that was never done.
I very possibly could be incorrect though.
I have never run into a section in which the GLO set the center of section, with the possible exception of Indian sections and that's a question for our CFedS friends.
I'll check on this though...
This is where it gets a little crazy. If you look at the Book written by Schobel Clevenger U.S. Deputy Surveyor in 1873 he states to use the method of west to east split. What makes it frustrating back in those times you were trained by your mentor. If you learned a wrong way you just perpetuated the error. As some of these surveyors went on to become County Surveyors and continued setting the center of secion accordingly. For what it is worth. I have a surveying textbook that explains that there can be two center of sections and that the south two quarters are to be by split acreage and the north two quarters are to be split by acreage.
> This seems correct since following the instructions is part of re-surveying and you cannot re-survey something that was never done.
>
WHOA there cowboy!!! ...... [sarcasm]not according to at least one licensing board!!!![/sarcasm]
