Proportioning is acceptable as evidence of the original corner location if that is all there is.?ÿ Of course, it is only valid between the nearest original corners.?ÿ If the erroneous survey only set paper corners then you know what it is useful for.?ÿ If it set monuments then that is more troublesome; if the monuments are buried an no knows they are out there then they can be ignored.?ÿ If they have been accepted then their effect is probably local.?ÿ But all boundary is local anyway.
I believe all of the boundary doctrines grew out of the need to prove original evidence, they are not equitable procedures as has been suggested in the past.?ÿ Other than the entire body of real property law evolved in equity, not common law.?ÿ For example, paper deed transfers were not legally recognized before the Statute of Frauds except in equity.?ÿ Livery of Seisin was absolutely required for the Law Courts to recognize the title transfer.
Hi Dave- always enjoy reading your comments here. As a novice, I'm trying to get my head around your comments about equity and common law. I get your point about sanctity of original evidence, but my question is this. When all original evidence, and direct connection to original evidence has disappeared, should the retracing surveyor concern himself with concepts of equity in boundary resolution??ÿ
Thanks!
"Found monuments erroneously set by said County at later date".?ÿ
I wouldn't use the word "erroneously" unless you want to add libel to the pile of problems.
"Found monuments erroneously set by said County at later date".
My standard goto is "OOP" as in "found iron rod out of place".
It sounds like you have found the corners that really matter, the others represent mathematical solutions for controlling corner positions that obviously never were searched for.?ÿ From what I have been taught over the decades, if the original corners can be recovered or restored by original evidence, that is the corner and shall be relied upon for further subdivision.?ÿ Therefore the other corners are merely monuments found out of position.?ÿ Document, document, document!?ÿ Thanks for sharing the results of some GOOD survey work!
The original corners he found control any future subdivisions.?ÿ
The "other" corners may control some past subdivisions if there is evidence of reliance and acceptance.?ÿ You can't automatically say they are junk.
How big is the difference?
Nate,
A wise man once told me, "Correct is an identity, not a distance."...
Yes, but distance can be an issue in community impact, and resolution of conflict.
N
Agreed. And to be fair it is good to check connections to other corners as part of evaluation. But that doesnt sound as cool...
?ÿ
Found North End Township Corner, 1914 Brass Cap.?ÿ 6" under gravel turnout from paved highway.?ÿ
How it survived in this location is a miracle.?ÿ I found some other corners to the west to try and place it.
Sorry for the poor picture was late in the day after sundown.
When I got there buzzed right up!
Found underground about 1.5 west of predicted position.?ÿ VERY NICE 1/4 stone from 1871.?ÿ GLO post and cap (1914) had been bent over and broken off.?ÿ Corner between Sections 1 and 6.
?ÿ
Found near predicted position. Bent over post and cap under surface of gravel road.?ÿ Base is vertical in natural soil but stone is gone.
Corner between Sections 36 and 31.?ÿ Previous survey had found this one, see buried flagging.
?ÿ
At the corner of Sections 1-6-7-12 fence from east comes in at my proportioned distance.
Center of?ÿ county road going west is in alignment with fence from East.
County Cap is 4 feet North.
?ÿ
At the 1/4 corner of Sections 12 and 7 fences in alignment from West and East come in
at my proportioned distance.?ÿ County Cap is 8.4 feet north.
?ÿ
I'm still working on it.
SWEET! ??ÿ
Keep'm coming Leon.
Found underground about 1.5 west of predicted position.?ÿ VERY NICE 1/4 stone from 1871.?ÿ GLO post and cap (1914) had been
bent over and broken off.?ÿ Corner between Sections 1 and 6.
Nice finds Leon.?ÿ Not a criticism per se of what the GLO did in 1914 (just a pet peeve of mine), but why the heck did they set a pipe and cap NEXT to a perfectly fine original stone??ÿ It would be one thing if they decided to replace the stone and dug a hole nearby and placed the stone upside down as a memorial to the corner.?ÿ I'm curious if the dependent resurvey field notes say something akin to, "set a pipe with brass cap next to found stone".?ÿ
Notes state that they set post and cap alongside found stone. They did this until about 1930 from my experience.
Yeah, I agree but when they went from stones to metal I suppose they just couldn't disturb the original marker.
Hey, the metal sets of a detector where most stones do not!