In 1881, Giraud resurveyed along the south bank of the Pecos River for the Houston & Great Northern Railroad, setting wonderful 1-1/2" x 3' iron pipes almost every other section corner. In the area in question, a 28 acre area of unsurveyed land was left in between Section 27 and 26 from Giraud's survey. Section 26 did not receive a pipe at the southwest corner but has a witness pipe on line about 600 feet east. In 1905, Reeves County Surveyor, A.M. "hit-and-miss" Randolph received an application from a homesteader to map the unsurveyed public school land. Randolph submitted field notes that basically mirrored Giraud's gap except that he called for adding an additional stone mound at the southeast corner of the 28 acres and called for the common lines with 27 on the west and 26 on the east. I suspect Randolph's work may have been pencil whipped and no field work was done.
Fast forward to 1972, an unknown surveyor prepared a legal description for a deed. He found Giraud's original pipe at the southwest corner of the 28 acres and then the other original Giraud pipe two section corners to the east. These two original pipes have 54' of excess. The unknown surveyor did not call for finding Randolph's mound. He set a new 2" iron pipe for the southeast corner of the 28 acre gap and pushed all the excess acreage into the public school land tract resulting in 30.6 acres. There is no evidence of occupation on the surface and there are no monuments at the north end of 27, the gap or Section 26. After thinking about it, I agree with the 1972 surveyor. Another surveyor in my office say that because Giraud surveyed both sides of the gap, that his original survey controls and the gap must be prorated all the way through resulting in 29 acres.
Anyone settle the disagreement?
I'll only say a little bit. NO matter what you do, somebody will disagree. At some time, and at some place.
So, whatever you do, DOCUMENT what, and why you do what you do.
And, if it is POSSIBLE, get an agreement from the effected parties.
IF you got an agreement, from the effected parties, and documented it, the sleeping dog would lie, til Christ comes.
Nate
Andy Nold, post: 363052, member: 7 wrote: southwest corner of the 28 acres and then the other original Giraud pipe two section corners to the east.
As you can see by the graphic that I added, I should have said that he found the monument on the east corner of 27 and the witness "traverse line" monument on the southeast line of 26.
Ultimately, it's not my boundary decision. I'm just trying to help a brother out.
After a lot of reading and ruminating, the decision was made. The section line was held at the prorated distance based on the original Giraud monuments.
The property line was held to the 1972 unknown surveyor's 2" pipe.
Asbestos undergarments have been donned. Criticism? Fire away.
I thought that as a general rule excess acreage goes to the State. I think it's a little odd to hold the property line somewhere other than the section line when there is no evidence of occupation.
From the given information and where there is document information that gives only that much information, My first thought would be to set a monument 164vrs from the southwest corner monument.
From the standpoint of the State of Texas, they claim any excess area remaining after granting the number of acres conveyed to others.
With that insight, the 1972 surveyor was probably correct.
0.02
Cyril Turner, post: 363079, member: 159 wrote: I thought that as a general rule excess acreage goes to the State.
That was my contention.
I'm really playing devils advocate on both sides of the fence, but....
Is not the 2" pipe evidence of occupation? (at some point there were 2 and there still might be one at the north end of the line, the crew will look again before setting a new monument for this survey). Also, since there has been mineral production in that area and the current owners have been leasing based on the 1972 survey for 43 years.
The scrap is classified as Relinquishment Act Land and Section 26 is Free Royalty Land.
Alan, does the owner of Section 26 not have the same right to file for a deed of aquittance for the excess acreage in his survey that is shown by the excess in the original monuments from the same survey system?
Andy Nold, post: 363052, member: 7 wrote: There is no evidence of occupation on the surface and there are no monuments at the north end of 27, the gap or Section 26. After thinking about it, I agree with the 1972 surveyor. Another surveyor in my office say that because Giraud surveyed both sides of the gap, that his original survey controls and the gap must be prorated all the way through resulting in 29 acres.
Anyone settle the disagreement?
First of all, State Surveyor E.A. Giraud was not the original surveyor of Surveys 25, 26, and 27. They were originally located by El Paso Deputy Surveyor Wm. Nelson in 1873. Giraud's work in 1890 was merely a resurvey as authorized by the Resurveys Act of 1887 [9 Gammels Laws 905] (or so I would assume from his Corrected Field Notes for Surveys 25 and 27 on file in the the GLO). Giraud's work was correct to the extent that it cannot be shown to be materially different from that of Nelson's original work. While the purpose of his survey was obviously to actually identify the boundaries of various tracts of School Land that Nelson had located, including Survey 26 as the alternate of Survey 25, that was the limit of his authority.
The 27.45 acres of land in the gap between Surveys 26 and 27 was evidently surveyed by virtue of an application to purchase unsurveyed school land and was subsequently sold as School Land. Since both the 27.45 acres and Survey 27 were sold as School Land, one key element to the boundary between them (if they are in fact adjacent land) is when the applications to purchase both were made since those would ordinarily determine seniority of title. I can't answer that question via the internet since the School Land files are not yet on line.
In State v. Sullivan [92 S.W.2d 228; 127 Tex. 525] the effect of a call for adjoiner made in ignorance or error was held to be inferior to a call for distance. Whether a large excess in the dimensions of the 27.45 acres over that set forth in the patent would be unsold school land or leave a vacancy probably depends upon which way that the wind is blowing at the GLO on any particular day, although the question has been litigated.
For the interested, here is a slightly longer version of some of the historical background:
Surveys 25 and 26 were originally located by Wm. Nelson as a Deputy of El Paso District Surveyor Jos. Wilkin Tays on April 6, 1873. Patent was issued 10/09/1885 to Survey 25 on the field notes returned by Nelson and has never been canceled. Survey 25 was made by virtue of alternate scrip issued to the Houston and Great Northern Railroad Company for 640 acres of land on condition that a section ajoining that located under that certificate be also located for the State of Texas.
Deputy Surveyor Wm. Nelson also returned field notes for Survey 26 as the alternate adjoining 25 located under the same scrip. His original survey constituted the appropriation of the land of Survey 26 as described in his field notes as School Land for the State of Texas. The extreme problem with Nelson's location of both Surveys 25 and 26 was that he had evidently merely traversed along the Pecos River, reporting that he had set stakes at various corners, many of which were most likely fictitious and calling for no means of identifying any that may have actually existed on the ground short of an extensive resurvey.
In April of 1890, E.A. Giraud, as State Surveyor, made a resurvey of both Surveys 25 and 26, working under R.M. Hall, Commissioner of the General Land Office. Giraud's work was evidently made pursuant to the Resurveys Act of 1887 [9 Gammels Laws 905], the purpose of which was "to provide for acertaining and correcting conflicts and errors" in various surveys of lands in which the State of Texas may be interested. The location of Survey 26 depended upon that of Survey 25 and so Giraud's resurvey of Survey 25 and filing of Corrected Field Notes for 25 was plainly done "for the proper compilation of maps, or for the proper location and identification of said lands upon the ground" as authorized in Section 1 of the Act of 1887.
The limits of Giraud's authority were to identify the positions upon the ground in which Wm. Nelson had originally located Surveys 25 and 26. He had no authority beyond that and was obliged to follow the directions of Commissioner Hall (which in practice probably meant the instructions given by Chief Draftsman Ernst Von Rosenburg) as to the proper method of resurveying them. At any rate, I take it that E.A. Giraud also filed Corrected Field Notes for Survey 26 in the GLO and that the 640 acres was subsequently sold by the State of Texas as School Land and that patent issued, presumably upon the Corrected Field Notes in NOvember, 1943.
As a part of his work in 1873, Deputy Surveyor Wm. Nelson also located Survey 27. His field notes tie the position of Survey 27 to the South corners of Survey 25 and recite no call for adjoiner with Survey 26, thus leaving the space that Giraud later found to exist between Surveys 26 and 27.
That space of 27.45 acres between the Northeast line of Survey 27 and the Southwest line of Survey 26 was originally surveyed as Unsurveyed School Land in 1905 by virtue of an application by Charles H. Thorp made with intention to purchase the same under the terms of the Act of February 23, 1900. Field notes were returned to the GLO by Reeves County Surveyor A.M. Randolph evidently describing a tract 164 varas by 945 varas. The GLO file describes the series of misadventures that delayed Charles H. Thorp's purchase of the land described by Randolph as unsurveyed school land.
As a footnote: here's a link to the Resurveys Act of 1887 [9 Gammel's Laws 905] by virtue of which E.A. Giraud's resurvey was made (as well as nearly all of the other resurveys made by State Surveyors).
One thing that immediately catches my eye about the surveys of Houston & Great Northern Railroad Company Block 2 is that they were made by virtue of certificates requiring the surveyor not to number the surveys. In practice, that amounted to the surveyor penciling in the numbers which were then renumbered in ink at the GLO when the field notes were examined. The whole idea of renumbering surveys at the GLO was unworkable, but that was obviously what was done in the case of Block 2.
If you look at the series of the fieldnotes returned by Wm. Nelson for the surveys along the Pecos, you'll see that some of the inked survey numbers as assigned at the GLO are VERY DIFFERENT from the penciled numbers that Nelson gave them. Assuming that Nelson actually assigned the penciled numbers in some logical order, I'd wonder if the GLO actually shifted the field notes wildly out of position by arbitrarily renumbering them to make, say, Survey (penciled) No. 6 into Survey (inked) No. 3 and, similarly, Survey 7 into Survey 4. I would want to examine that by rearranging Nelson's field notes using his penciled numbers to see how that looks.
Kent McMillan, post: 363225, member: 3 wrote: I would want to examine that by rearranging Nelson's field notes using his penciled numbers to see how that looks.
So, I did and found that the examining draftsman at the GLO had apparently preserved the scheme without shifting surveys around.
As for the construction problem, it probably would be helpful to know which of Giraud's monuments have been found on the traverse line he ran through the surveys on the river as shown on his map that accompanied his Corrected Field Notes. Is the real problem that the pipe found at the East corner of Survey 27 is significantly out of position, i.e. quite a bit more than 401 varas distant from the traverse line? 
Andy Nold, post: 363052, member: 7 wrote: Anyone settle the disagreement?
Okay, I'd say that this boils down to reading State Surveyor Giraud's Corrected Field Notes which for Survey 31 don't give a passing call for the pipe marking the East corner of Survey 27 on the Northwest line of Survey 31, but do give a passing call for the pipe at 1176 varas from the West corner.
The Corrected Field Notes for Survey 26 sold as School Land haven't been scanned and aren't on line yet, but I assume that they only tie to Giraud's witness pipes on the NW and SE lines 237 varas from the West and South corners of 26 respectively. In other words, I assume that the only basis for locating the West and South corners of Survey 26 as described in the field notes upon which patent issued is at the called distance of 237 varas from his pipes.
The Corrected Field Notes for Survey 25 likewise do not give any calls that would place the West and South corners of Survey 26 at any distance other than 237 varas from Giraud's pipes on the NW and SE lines of Survey 26.
So, I'd say that it is pretty clear that there is no basis in his field notes for locating the West and South corners of Survey 26 in any position other than 237 varas from Giraud's pipes.
If there is an excess over 401 varas between the East corner of Survey 27 and the South corner of Survey 26, then that belongs in the space that Giraud left between Surveys 26 and 27. Whether that results in excess acreage in Survey 7 that was intended to cover the space between Surveys 26 and 27 or not depends upon the calls of the field notes upon which patent issued, I'd think. They aren't on line and I haven't examined them, but the excess probably is just excess acreage in Survey 7, subject to purchase with the same classification as in the original award.
Kent McMillan, post: 363207, member: 3 wrote: First of all, State Surveyor E.A. Giraud was not the original surveyor of Surveys 25, 26, and 27.
Well, I did open the post with "Giraud resurveyed along the south bank of the Pecos River..."
Thanks for flushing out the details. I think that does make for a more thorough discussion of the problem. I've just returned from a 7 hour shift on the streetcar fighting St. Patrick's weekend traffic in Uptown Dallas, so I'll have to digest your points tomorrow and reply as needed. I will pass your comments to my associate.
Andy Nold, post: 363277, member: 7 wrote: Thanks for flushing out the details.
One other interesting detail is that what was later sold as 27.45 acres of School Land was the subject of a preemption affidavit (Bex-P-007969) dated 03/10/1891 and filed in the GLO in 1892. In the application, the land subject of the preemption was described as 182 varas x 945 varas, not 164 varas x 945 varas.
It makes me wonder if there were two different versions of the Corrected Field Notes for Survey 26 filed in the County Surveyor's Records by E.A. Giraud. If so, the first question that comes to mind is whether a computational error of 182 varas - 164 varas = 18 varas was found in Giraud's field notes as originally filed and subsequently corrected.
The file jacket for Bex-S-002868 (the file for Survey 25 and in which the Corrected Field Notes for Survey 26 originally resided) reflects only one filing of corrected field notes on 08/22/1890, but I wonder what is in the file for Survey 26.
Giraud's sketch is dated 09/13/1890, nearly a month after the original filing of corrected notes, so it is conceivable that some revisions were made to the notes for Survey 26 in the interim and the sketch doesn't reflect the original state of the corrected notes that might have been on file in the Reeves County Surveyor's Records and upon which the original preemption application of 03/10/1891 was based.
This is a string of "ifs", but it would not be entirely inconceivable that Giraud revised his field notes without shifting a whole series of pipes by 18 varas he had set on the Southwesterly lines of Surveys 26, 27, 28, 29 ... Recognizing the fudge that he had made would explain why he omitted the call for the Northeast corner of Survey 27 in his notes for Survey 31.
One detail that is a bit too close to likely be coincidence is that Deputy Surveyor Wm. Nelson's call in his 1873 patent field notes for Survey 25 is for 3506 varas on the Northwest line of the survey. However, in Giraud's 1890 Corrected Field Notes for Survey 25, his call on the same line is 3491 varas. It would not at all be inconceivable that Giraud used Nelson's call to fix the position of the West corner of Survey 25 which was also the North corner and Point of Beginning of Survey 27 as described by Nelson and in the patents issued upon his field notes and laid out both the East corner of Survey 27 and those on the survey lines running Southwest from there at regular 1900 vara intervals.
However, if Giraud's calcuations are correct (I haven't checked them), that distance of 3506 varas would have placed an excess in Survey 25 which reducing the call to 3491 eliminated. As he went over his field notes in the office, Giraud would have realized that an excess in Survey 25 would be a problem at the GLO and penciled the call down to 3491 in his filed Corrected Field Notes and sketch. That would explain why Giraud had actually located and marked the East corner of Survey 27 in a position that was nominally 15 varas Southwest of where the calls of his Corrected Field Notes as filed would indicate that it should be.
One thing that is interesting about E.A. Giraud's reconstruction of H & G N RR. Co. Block 2 is how he constructed Surveys 1 - 6 fronting on the Pecos.
It isn't clear to me how exactly he arrived at the position in which he monumented the West corner of Survey 1, for example. Giraud placed it on the Southeast line of Survey 38 at a distance of 3736 varas from the bank of the Pecos River whereas Nelson's original call in the field notes upon which patent issued was for 3815 varas. Here's a comparison of the lengths of all of the side lines for Surveys 1 - 6:
Line Nelson Giraud Diff
NW 1 3815 3736 -79
SW 1 3785 3719 -66
NW 2 3760 3843 +83
SW 2 3840 3903 +63
NW 3 3843 3779 -64
SW 3 3757 3694 -63
NW 4 3785 3694 -91
SW 4 3815 3653 -162
NW 5 3825 3653 -172
SW 5 3775 3601 -174
NW 6 3580 3591 +11
SW 6 4020 4086 +66
Even stranger is how Giraud arrived at the position of the back line of Survey 2. Mystery.
Of course, Nelson had started much closer to the Texas/New Mexico Territory line, as the validity of the 16 mile reservation was still being argued. Several miles of upriver surveys were cancelled after the rez was upheld.
Note that in Giraud's reconstruction of Survey 6 he has apparently adjusted the back line by 10 varas to the Northeast to make an even 640 acres in the survey although his pipe remains in place as likely first set. That would be consistent with my present theory of what happened in the case of Survey 25, except that Surveys 25 and 27 were tied together by Nelson's calls for adjoiner and so Giraud couldn't just pull the lines apart to leave exactly 640 acres in Survey 25. He could change the call and leave the pipe as it was.
Considering that the NW line of Survey 25 was 3491 varas from the river bank to the West corner of 25, an error of 15 varas in the actual length of the line would have been introduced by fudging it. That error was not excessive by the standard of the day.