Would you look any further?

If we have to start over every time at high cost to the client I don't why we bother setting anything at all.

If what you found is consistent with occupation, I'd probably go with it. I'd tie in anything you found nearby, but I certainly would not do the whole section unless I really felt a compelling reason to do so, like inconsistencies against an aerial....or ambiguities in the other documents.....

From a California and recording state perspective, I would tie in the nearest 1/4 and section corners so you have a relationship to adjacent title interests as well as PLSS control, especially given that this survey was not public knowledge.

Run with it. You are following what was done and intended to be conveyed.

We all know that the north line of the southwest quarter and the south line of the southwest quarter will not be parallel and precisely 2640 feet apart. I'm more interested in where the southwest corner of the east half of the southwest quarter is located. Is it precisely 1320 feet west of the south quarter corner? Is there any chance that the owner in 1964 owned both the southwest quarter AND northwest quarter of the section?

Edit: What does the precise wording used by the surveyor in 1964 say? Does it say something like, "thence north 2640 feet to the north line of the southwest quarter"? If so, the numerical value bends to the actual location of the north line of the southwest quarter, whether too short or too long. Even if he says it is to be 2640, but is only listed as being a part of the southwest quarter, then you must stop at the QSL if it is short of 2640.

Those of us who worked back in the dark ages understand why surveyors did not go out and try to reinvent the wheel (section) every time they were called on to do a survey.

> My question is would you bound the section and try to determine where the "math & manual" places the north line of the SW/4 or would you just restore Durkee's survey and move on?
>

Well, if this were in Texas (which it isn't), I'd want to know :

(a) whether the SW 1/4 of Section 23 was in separate ownership from the remainder of the section at the time of the subdivision of the SW 1/4,

(b) by what descriptions the present adjoining owners out of the remainder of the section hold their lands, and

(c) whether there is something about the shape and location of those remainders that would tend to make those landowners dispute the 1964 surveyor's location of the supposed common boundary.

"Starting 825' east of the SW Cor. of the E/2 of the SW/4,
North 2640', East 330', South 2640', West 330' to the beginning,
containing 20 acres."
Clearly a description written from the comfort of an office and later marked on the ground by a deed staker. If that section was owned by one owner, probably OK. This section begs to be broken down properly, maybe not to control long term occupation but to preserve the work of the GLO and to determine where the Exterior Section lines really are. Hate finding these types of descriptions with a later survey starting at a questionable point and running around a tract using right angles, Occupation may have perfected title, but the description is defective along with the survey that followed. One of the tricks used around here was a best guess at an aliquot corner, taking a sun shot to find North and running perfect aliquot distances and right angles at the corners. Idea being, make a quick buck, not overcharge the owner and no one will ever know. Well time passes and we find out and need to deal with it and the quicker it is dealt with the less painful it will be. Research would guide me to the method and extent of this one.
jud

My thoughts too, H.C.

This one has rolled around in my mind for a couple of days. BTW, the WD wording is verbatim what I posted.

The Jones, son and daughter-in-law of the original purchaser, are not monetarily wealthy folks. Ms. Jones and I had several "rounds" on the phone concerning the price of this survey.

I commended her for her negotiating skills. I thought I had scared her off after a two-week lull but she called me back and wanted to try "one more time" to get me off high center on my price. I told her then that I must be the low price, because if I wasn't...she would have called that fella back!

Her reply was, "Touche."

Anyway, I didn't know of the existence of the documentation until I got out there to meet the folks. Mr. Jones was nine years old when his folks bought the place and he helped his father place the fences and remembered the pins. It turned into quite a bit of "verbal testimony" backed by documentation.

After a preponderance of everything I can find, including ownerships since patent and 1951 SCS aerial photos, I'm going to call Durkee's placement of the C/4 the "original" corner, since no centers were set by the GLO in this area. Therefore I'm gonna hang my hat on Dykes v Arnold, 129 P 3d 257 (Ore. App. 2006) . Durkee was at one time the County Surveyor, but not at the date of his survey. I believe his subdivision of the section was the "original".

I was trying not to let the client's desire for a cheaper price affect my work, but I think the fees will be somewhat less than I originally quoted, after all that I discovered.

My thoughts too, H.C.

> .....I believe his subdivision of the section was the "original".

If this is true, then it is a slam dunk(probably) if not; do you remember the "So you want to be a surveyor thread" (AKA Pipe v. Stone) of years gone by? B-)

Prepare to repel boarders!

Oh jeez, this one might hit me where the good lord split me, but I'm prepared. There's a number of different ways to go about it, I chose the restoration of Durkee's survey and can defend my decision.

BTW, I did bound the section and found that a bearing-bearing intersection does NOT fit Durkee's survey (did anybody really think it did!?). It winds up ten or fifteen yards into a pasture. But at that location there is no fence, no monument, no nuttin'. The closest thing I could find was a cow-pie.

Prepare to repel boarders!

I believe the whole premise, to holding the stone over the pipe, was; the stone was there first. If your county surveyor was the first surveyor to divide the property, then I would hold his marks. If he failed to research and locate any original survey, and you hold his marks. Then you are just as wrong as he was.. :snarky:

Durkee's survey monuments control. Anything outside of that is irrelevant.

Prepare to repel boarders!

> BTW, I did bound the section and found that a bearing-bearing intersection does NOT fit Durkee's survey (did anybody really think it did!?). It winds up ten or fifteen yards into a pasture.

So, you've assembled facts that show that the 1964 survey was grossly erroneous. I'd say the relevant question is in whose pasture the 1/4 corner that was so erroneously placed would properly fall. If it's inside your clients's pasture, then that's one thing; in the adjoining pasture, that's another.

Is the idea that the adjoining landowners would never agree to fix the boundary in that erroneous position because the loser would see it as being against their interest?

Except the found meadow muffin.

Isn't there a surveying principal that once the corners are set and used by the land owners they become the corners even if less than perfect survey methods were used? In other words, use what you found.

I can just here Jeff Lucas, screaming at the top of his lungs, "how many times do we have to break down a section"! Don't break down the section again.

> Isn't there a surveying principal that once the corners are set and used by the land owners they become the corners even if less than perfect survey methods were used?

There is also the principle that mere acquiescence in a mistakenly located boundary doesn't necessarily fix the boundary by acquiescence.

> In other words, use what you found.

Except what paden has found is that the 1964 surveyor's work was not performed to any acceptable standard. It was grossly erroneous if the proper position of the 1/4 corner is more than 30 ft. away from where the 1964 surveyor marked it. So, given that (a) the 1964 surveyor had no official capacity to fix the corner and (b) he didn't apparently even follow the laws in force at the time that governed his work, it's relevant to consider the matter from the standpoint of the adjoining landowner, i.e. what the issues are that they would likely raise if the boundary were contested later.

According to your state law, are the requirements for boundary establishment in place or not?

48 years is a long time for a survey line to be treated as boundary but it's possible the boundary has not been established. Be careful as you could get trapped in the Twilight Zone out there.

Prepare to repel boarders!

Oh, I don't think the '64 survey was grossly in error. As a matter of fact, for the time period and the property values, it was a pretty good job.

Did Durkee follow the "Manual of Surveying Instructions"? Probably not.

Did Durkee bound the section before preparing his "subdivision"? Durkee's 1964 boundary shows the length of the south line of the SW/4 as 2662', not 2640'. The present day distance between recorded corners is 2662.47'. There is no other evidence of a section breakdown however.

And more evidence supporting the 1964 survey: almost every other parcel in the NW/4 and the SE/4 appears to have been surveyed from, or at least aligned with, Durkee's C/4 corner.

In 1964 the North and West sides of this section were closed (no roads). It is still wooley terrain and the West side is still closed. I don't know what Durkee didn't "turn 90" and run these lines north 40 chains, there is evidence that is exactly what he did. But no matter how he did it; he did run the lines. And they are still there today.

I'm sure some newer surveyors armed with coon-skin caps, manuals and HPs can establish their "true corner" somewhere near the cow-pie. Let 'em. Maybe we can put wheels on all the fences and move them around every few years when a new survey pops up.:snarky:

I'm not of the "Clark-Robillardian" school that holds these interior corners as some etherical and magical mathematical point that we continually estimate, but never establish. I am far from that; I am a land surveyor. My opinion is that if the original monument's location can be confirmed, then it holds no error. I cannot pass judgement on the field procedures of my predecessors, I can only discover their paths and their work.

Let's try a few hundred feet

First, one must understand that much of what was written in the Government Field Notes belongs in the Fiction Section of the local library. Second, one must also understand that the early arrivers to the freshly monumented sections MAY HAVE deliberately moved some monuments to more beneficial locations while no one was there to catch them in the act. Third, one must never assume that a specific method as described in a famous Government-issue book was ever followed to the letter by crews who were in the middle of absolute nowhere with unfriendly aborigines providing distractions. Fourth, one must never assume their measurements are superior to any others ever made. Fifth, I believe I'll have another. Sixth, one should never presume that any monument found, including what appears to be the original, was set or is currently located in the identical spot as that determined by the first survey crew in PLSSia. Seventh, a huge percentage of original monuments were potentially removed a few short years after installation in order to facilitate farm-to-market roads being constructed by highly local labor, most of whom were completely ignorant relative to survey matters. Eighth, straight lines ain't straight and half distance is a joke. Ninth, crisscrossing from alleged quarter corners to establish a definitive center corner is merely an attempt to solve the unknown not rooted in reality, much like solving higher level mathematical puzzles utilizing what are known as imaginary numbers. Tenth, don't cuss fence line surveyors until you've walked a thousand miles in their clodhoppers.

O.K. Now I agree with Kent. Break down the entire section. You can probably find other evidence to ignore, find more surveys to question, and throw the entire ownership in that section into disarray.

30' Kent? Is there some kind of case law that says 30' is the magic number where you can or can't use a corner?