We are surveying in PLSSia. We need to locate the corners of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter. We have modern monuments found at all four quarter corners. The south half of the section was subdivided in 1883 after about 15 years of settlement by the original owners (patents from government). We have found the stone set for the center corner in 1883 and it is very close to the theoretical position based on the modern quarter corner monuments.
Here is the problem. The 1883 surveyor (county engineer/surveyor) set a stone at the 1/8 corner east of the center corner. We can not find this stone. His notes indicate that he set it 19.73 chains east of the center corner and 20.03 chains west of the east quarter corner. He did not set it at the midpoint, 19.88 chains.
Where should I place the 1/8th corner?
> Where should I place the 1/8th corner?
Isn't it called a 1/16th corner? I've never heard of a 1/8th corner...
Anyway, do you have a good reason for it not being there?
If you do, I would say to proportion it back in, based on the 1883 notes. This would be following in the foot steps of the original subdivider.
If you don't, I'd keep looking;-)
Dugger
You are correct. It's just a bad habit of mine.
The stone is probably missing due to bulldozing of tree rows along fencelines.
If the stone itself and its accessories (the primary evidence) are missing, the next step is to gather and consider secondary evidence. Is there any physical evidence of fences or other occupation constructed in reliance upon the stone while it was existent? Any surveys conducted on nearby parcels that can be backed in? Consider any evidence that can be relied upon to reestablish the obliterated corner.
Just because the stone is missing is no reason to make the quantum leap to presuming that the corner is lost and must be replaced by proportionate measurement (the rule of last resort).
JBS
beat me to the punch
Collect evidence that proves or disproves reliance upon the corners set in 1883. Obliterated vs lost...
> Isn't it called a 1/16th corner? I've never heard of a 1/8th corner...
its older vernacular... I hear 1/8th corner far more than 1/16th corner.
@ Cow: how does the 1883 center cor check in relation to the modern 1/4 cor mons in terms of the 1883 record calls?
Holy,
“While the original PLSS surveys were supposed to conform to official procedures, some errors were made due either to honest mistakes or to fraudulent surveys. Existing surveys are considered authoritative, and any new surveys must work from existing corners and surveys, in spite of errors in the original surveys and variations from the ideal. This sometimes results in sections that are far from square, or that contain well over or under 640 acres.”
The above was from: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/boundaries/a_plss.html
Since you stated, “We have found the stone set for the center corner in 1883 and it is very close to the theoretical position based on the modern quarter corner monuments”, I would suggest you utilize the found center of section and break down the NE1/4. Then search for the stone at the 1/8th (aka 1/16th) corner, and any evidence of occupation and the age thereof. If none, use your data.
JMHO
Have a great Holiday Season! 🙂
I've seen it called a 1/8th corner. I've come across 19th century county surveyor field notes where they measured across east to west and back then divided the line into 8 parts. The County Surveyor would set a monument at every nominal 10 chains, hence the name 1/8th corner.
I would hate to get anyone excited about fences, but.........
One existing fence is probably nearing 100 years old. It runs right along the quarter section line. The cross fences meet within one foot of the prorated distance between the found center stone and east quarter corner bar. They are far newer, yet, are most probably in agreement with what was dozed out twenty years ago. They are not off by 10 feet as would be needed to conform with a midpoint proportion.
> set a stone at the 1/8 corner east of the center corner. We can not find this stone. His notes indicate that he set it 19.73 chains east of the center corner and 20.03 chains west of the east quarter corner. He did not set it at the midpoint, 19.88 chains.
Why? Did he say? Was he breaking down the SE 1/4 and had some occupation prior to the original GLO survey? Or is it a transcription error in the notes?
an odd one for sure
Check with Nearest GIS !
> I would hate to get anyone excited about fences, but.........
Have you checked with the nearest GIS manager to see where the corner really is? :>
It Is Only A 10' Circle Around The Midpoint, Look Both Ways
20.03 and 19.73 make sense if it was a closing section. However if it is a Township that closed on the East the 20.03 and 19.73 should be reversed.
What section? in what township? on what range?
Just throwing in all the posibilities.
Paul in PA
It Is Only A 10' Circle Around The Midpoint, Look Both Ways
> What section? in what township? on what range?
>
That was my first question as well.
Are there any other 1/16th corners found in that 1/4 section that would lend to the location of the CE1/16? That may give you insight as to why the corner was not set on the midpoint.
Also, you found an "older" C1/4 along with a "modern" E1/4 right? There's a possibility that someone "relocated"(right, wrong or indifferent)the "modern" E1/4. I would look into the location of that E1/4 and see if it has "moved"
Holy Digger,
I gave you a short answer, based on the assumption that you had presented us with all of the evidence you had collected thus far. I also assume that you are at a point where you have made your decision and are just looking for confirmation. That's what I do when I post my problems;-)
Forgive me if you think, that I think, that you should jump to proportion as your resolution, that was not my intent.
Thank you,
Douglas
I've retracted a number of 1/8 corners. They were set when the original surveyor broke the section into 8 parts; E1/2NE1/4, W1/2NE1/4, ect. The surveyor marked the stones with 1/8. He monumented the "1/16" corners along the north line, south line and e-w center line including the C1/4 of the Section. Only the 1/4's on the west line and east line and only the c1/4 afor the n-s centerline.
Why did the county surveyor measure 19.73 and 20.03? Was it an occupation survey? Now you have a fence that is at the split? How old is it? It really sounds like pretty good evidence to me. Did the county surveyor do accurate work? It will be hard to override the fence intersection.
