paden cash, post: 381868, member: 20 wrote: Shame on you for suggesting things in the Texas in which Mr. McMillan lays down his head at night could be in better shape with a rectangular survey system. Can't you see the obvious superiority of the Texas land tenure system within the example he posted??!
Yes, those empty states to the North of Texas were presented with basically a blank slate of land and just decided that it would be smart to make it all a checkboard so that land surveyors could save money by only buying instruments with NORTHish, SOUTHish, EASTish, and WESTish on them. One might also speculate that the planners envisioned a lesser grade of individual might eventually be in charge of figuring out where boundaries were and wanted to make it possible to present those future surveyors with a cookbook to solve all problems.
Here in Texas, already quite a bit of the land was surveyed off under the system in place back when all official land grants were in Spanish, so we didn't have the option of just starting from scratch as was done elsewere in PLSSia. The other angle is that while I realize just about any part of Texas looks uniformly much better than some of the dust-choked, barren plains to the North of the Red River, this is not actually the case. Some parts of Texas are much better than others in the water and pasture department. So the plan was to let the folks go to any dish on the buffet, not just settle for whatever the servers dropped on their plate, so to speak.
The other important difference is that Texas is just a much bigger state with elbow room that demands more than a 40 here or a 40 there. A land grant in Texas after 1836 meant 4428 acres and change, which is real land. So, Texas began its public land grant program and it all progressed from there secure in the knowledge that the manufacturers of surveying instruments would continue to make instruments with graduations other than NORTH, SOUTH, EAST and WEST. Even more importantly, a far-sighted leadership saw fit to create a system where the most pressing surveying issue of the day would not be where the center of some 640-acre square of land might be.
Here's a cute boundary construction problem that shares a bit of the excitement of Texas surveying. The order of surveys is as follows:
1881.04.30
E.B. Chandler, Uvalde District Surveyor, locates Surveys 688 and 689 tieing them together with adjoiner calls and a call for the same identifiable mark at the SE corner of Survey 688 and SW corner of Survey 689.
1885.05.25
O.H. Hector, Special Surveyor of Maverick County, locates Survey 934 by virtue of Veteran's Donation Certificate issued to Charles Cronea that had been assigned to B.C. Flowers
1886.06.26
J.W. Bennett, Uvalde County Surveyor, locates Survey No. 1035 by virtue of Confederate Scrip in the name of Mrs. H.E. Taylor that had been assigned to E.A. Giraud
1887.09.16
C.F. Hodges, Kinney District Surveyor, locates Survey 934-1/2 by virtue of a Confederate Scrip issued to Mrs. D.J. Parker that she had assigned to B.C. Flowers.
1887.09.26
O.H. Hector, Maverick County Surveyor, files a map and field notes showing connecting lines that he had run to determine the relative positions of Surveys Nos. 688, 689 and 934. A portion of his map appears in the detail below.
In the field notes for Surveys 688 and 689, E.B. Chandler described the South common corner of the surveys (shown as Corner "B" on the above sketch) originally established by him in April, 1881 as follows:
"a rock mound from which a Hackberry 3 & 7 in. dia. brs S9å¡E, 133 vrs."
In his field notes for the Charles Cronea Survey No. 934, O.H. Hector described its NE corner in 1885 (shown as Corner "D" on the sketch) as being:
"a stone mound set 95 varas West from S.E. Cor. No.688 and S.W. cor No.689 in name of E.L. Ellis from which a double Hackberry 4 & 8 in. dia. brs S45-1/2å¡E, 160 vrs."
and his calls for the North line of the Cronea Survey run East from that stone mound.
In his 1886 field notes for the Mrs. H.E. Taylor Survey No. 1035, J.W. Bennett called for the North line of Survey No. 1035 as running West with the South line of Survey No. 689 , at 1900 vrs. passing the SW corner of 689 described as being:
"a stone mound [...] from which two Hackberries 3 & 7 in. brs. S9å¡E, 113 vrs."
in all 1960-6/10 vrs. to as "st & md" at the NW corner of Survey No. 1035 (Corner "C" above). From that (most likely fictional) stake and mound, Bennett called for the West line of Survey No. 1035 to run South 1900 vrs. to a stake and mound at the SW corner of 1035.
In his 1887 field notes for Survey No. 934-1/2, C.F. Hodges begins at Corner "D" which he described as being "a stone md. set in Base line run by Jacob Kuechler for an East Cor. No. 934 Chas. Cronea from which a double Hackberry 4 & 8" S45-1/2å¡E, 160 vrs. and calls for the West line of Survey No. 934-1/2 to run South from there along the East line of the Cronea Survey No. 934, ultimately returning running East along the North line of the Cronea Survey to the P.O.B.
In those same field notes for Survey No. 934-1/2, Hodges calls for the East line of the survey to run North along the West line of the Mrs. M.E. Taylor Survey No. 1035 to its NW corner "in the South line of Survey No. 688 and to run West from there along the South line of Survey No. 688 to its SW corner.
The above sketch is a detail of a map of a resurvey filed in the GLO by Maverick County Surveyor O.H. Hector in September, 1887. Hector was the original locator of the Charles Cronea Survey No. 934. The current official GLO county map of Kinney County shows the Charles Cronea Survey No.934 adjoining Survey No. 688.
The question is this: Does the Charles Cronea Survey No.934 actually adjoin Survey No. 688 or can Survey No.934-1/2 exist between them?
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Corner "A" is what Maverick County Surveyor O.H. Hector described in the field notes of his 1887 resurvey work as
"two Hackberries 4 & 8" dia ///X// on North side"
and noted that at Corner "B" he found
"Stone md. S.E. Cor. 688 & SW cor 689 from which two Hackberries 4 & 8" brs S9å¡E, 113 vrs"
remarking:
"(these two trees are same as called for above in Kuecher's base line. see sketch)".
The East-West line that Corner "A" falls upon on the sketch is labeled "Base line by Jacob Kuechler" elsewhere outside the area shown on the detail.
"and his calls for the North line of the Cronea Survey run [hl]East[/hl] from that stone mound"
I got lost there, if we are at the northeast corner of the Cronea, and we are gonna run east? I'm trying to run this, but I may be asking for more info to build a sketch before I can throw my answer in.
Monte, post: 381913, member: 11913 wrote: "and his calls for the North line of the Cronea Survey run [hl]East[/hl] from that stone mound"
I got lost there, if we are at the northeast corner of the Cronea, and we are gonna run east? I'm trying to run this, but I may be asking for more info to build a sketch before I can throw my answer in.
Sorry, make that :
"and his calls for the North line of the Cronea Survey run West from that stone mound."
The essential problem is that the field notes returned by Hodges for Survey 934-1/2 give calls that would appear to tie Corners "C:" and "D" together in the same place.
I see the difference of 60 and 6/10 varas between the 1035 Taylor and the 934 Hector, but I am curious if the original notes for the 688 and 689 Chandler called to run N, E, S, W at 1900 Vara each? If so, this puts the call of a stone mound 95 varas west of the SE corner of 688/689 on the south boundary line of 688, although it does not specifically state so. Dadgumit, I done sat here for an hour looking at this, instead of working. :smarty:
Monte, post: 381924, member: 11913 wrote: I see the difference of 60 and 6/10 varas between the 1035 Taylor and the 934 Hector, but I am curious if the original notes for the 688 and 689 Chandler called to run N, E, S, W at 1900 Vara each? If so, this puts the call of a stone mound 95 varas west of the SE corner of 688/689 on the south boundary line of 688, although it does not specifically state so. Dadgumit, I done sat here for an hour looking at this, instead of working.
Survey No. 688 was not a regular section, 1900 varas square, but was configured to attempt to fit the senior Surveys No. 18, I. & G.N. RR. Co. Block 9 and No. 6, S.A. & M.G. RR. Co. The folks at the GLO lined out the adjoiner call for Survey No. 6 in Chandler's original notes as filed in 1881, which later became the basis for a Scrap File application covering a supposed vacancy between Surveys 688 and 6.
This is a situation where we have a map filed in the GLO by O.H. Hector (who was the original surveyor of the Charles Cronea Survey) based upon a later resurvey by him to determine the connections between various corners that he apparently had not tied together in his locative work. The original surveyor placed the Cronea Survey in a location that was evidently based upon his knowledge that his call for the South line of Survey 688 was mistaken and should yield to the other more certain calls he made and the GLO issued patent to Survey 634-1/2 covering a strip between the Cronea Survey nad Survey 688 with the results of Hector's resurvey in view.
A good reason why doing your research on not only the section you are working on, but surrounding sections also, is very important. And just going back 35 years is not enough. (Do the title companies in your neighborhood claim that's good enough?)
Monte, post: 381932, member: 11913 wrote: A good reason why doing your research on not only the section you are working on, but surrounding sections also, is very important. And just going back 35 years is not enough. (Do the title companies in your neighborhood claim that's good enough?)
Yes to both. Almost inevitably, the answer to questions involving the locations of original land grants requires casting a wide net for miles around. Even in the middle of a block of regular surveys, there is often the evidence of different theories of construction reflected by corrected field notes to deal with and weigh. That will typically require a study of the entire block and such senior surveys it was located in relation to.
On that particular project, the research disclosed an unusual situation that I don't believe I have seen before. The patent field notes were completely missing from the GLO file (a Scrap File) for one of the surveys. I ended up finding them in another file pertaining to a completely different survey miles away in the same county and they should now be scanned and restored to the proper file, but absent the actual field notes, (and accompanying sketch) I would have been left with only the patent itself and a drive to try to examine the County Surveyor's records (which may or may not be in good order in Kinney County).
Holy Cow, post: 381854, member: 50 wrote: a jillion county corners fall at section corners common to four sections. Yes, there are oddball exceptions, of course, like when the corner falls on a township or range line that has double corners.
Thread hijack:
The correction lines are visible in the shapes of counties of several states, but none more clearly than in western Iowa, where the correction has accumulated from the 5th principal meridian that cuts through the "nose" of eastern Iowa. There is also a base line, but it isn't visible since the range lines were run both north and south of it, to put the convergence at the Iowa-Missouri border.
A town called Correctionville in NW Iowa lies on the Second Correction Line. Since the roads do not line up on the north and south of this line, the town has made much of it with the motto "jog down our main street". Hwy 31, which looks to be the main street through Correctionville, makes a jog of about 100 feet, making the correction look fairly minor.
Actually few people realize the correction in this area is so large that if the map were cut and realigned to match township lines, the north and south parts of Correctionville would be 3.7 miles apart.
On Correctionville: That's quite interesting, I am not familiar with the PLSS beyond a simple understanding, and seeing that they made a town with the corrections in it strikes me as good humor!
We have been having difficulties lately in requesting files from the GLO, and not receiving complete copies of files. Since we are not local to Austin, we do not know if this is because pieces are missing, or if some parts are just not being copied. Since we are going to the area to do field work anyways, we camp in the county clerks office for a few days, and just recently found a case of the surveyor, an LSLS in the 1950's filing all his records in the county courthouse, but never sent them on to Austin. From following him around, I am not sure that his records not being filed in the GLO might not have worked out for the better, as he did not always follow patented calls, distances, or locative calls.
Monte, post: 381940, member: 11913 wrote: We have been having difficulties lately in requesting files from the GLO, and not receiving complete copies of files.
That surprises me. If you want copies of a complete file and ask for that, ordinarily you will get exactly that. There is no substitute, though, for examining the files in person and selecting contents to be copied with the entire file in view. Being about fifteen minutes away from Archives and Records, I have the luxury of just popping over in person. Eventually, of course, it will all be scanned and that will be great.
I look forward to the time when the records are all scanned and available. I am not a big city person, and Austin qualifies as a big city to me. My truck doesn't even fit in a downtown parking space! (well, it does, but barely leaves me room to maneuver out) I'd much rather be out surveying "where the deer and antelope play"
Monte, post: 381979, member: 11913 wrote: I look forward to the time when the records are all scanned and available. I am not a big city person, and Austin qualifies as a big city to me.
It will definitely be convenient to have the records all scanned and accessible on line, but it won't be nearly as much fun as handling the actual original files is. You haven't lived until you've sat in Archives and Records for a few days listening to the odd questions that walk in with various members of the public attached to them.
Kent McMillan, post: 381984, member: 3 wrote: You haven't lived until you've sat in Archives and Records for a few days listening to the odd questions that walk in with various members of the public attached to them.
:rofl: The last time I was at the GLO, The only other guy in the lobby was an old man, and to describe him, I have to use the word Character! Not in a bad way, mind ya, but in the most interesting means of the word. He was known to the lady at the desk, and I had other business, so I had to go on my way.
Monte, post: 381986, member: 11913 wrote: The last time I was at the GLO, The only other guy in the lobby was an old man, and to describe him, I have to use the word Character!
That was GLO Commissioner Jerry Patterson, I take it?
Kent McMillan, post: 382005, member: 3 wrote: That was GLO Commissioner Jerry Patterson, I take it?
Afraid the story isn't that good.
Well, I had lunch with Lady Bird Johnson once in the course of doing some surveying on the ranch that she and her late husband gave to the nation. I never let the bare facts of the conversation at table slow me down in the retelling. One has to have standards. This is TEXAS, not oklahoma or oregon.
Kent McMillan, post: 382005, member: 3 wrote: That was GLO Commissioner Jerry Patterson, I take it?
I was guessing Kent McM... :>
