Title lines versus ownership lines
One of the highlights of the early phase of my career was finding the remains of a GLO original wood ¼section post in the forest of northwest Washington State. This was 1993, it had been placed c.1915. Another crew member scored a GLO original capped iron post on the same job.
During my 2½ years in Oklahoma we found a couple of original stones. I suppose that if I spent my whole career there I might have piled up a few dozen.
I wish I could find the pictures of a couple of wood post state line monuments. They had the mile marker numbers on them 1879 for one, maybe the other was 1880. They were really cool to find.
This reminds me I have seen an original mark. Its just not in the original location. Interesting link about it. According to our statewide GNSS network its some 30 - 40 feet from the "title" line hee hee. Actually a good job by Capt. Lee wiggling in to half a chain using astronomic observations in 1849. "Of all the hundreds of markers set along the line by
the original survey, it is the only one remaining."
It needs to be moved where it's supposed to be,,,,,on that precise degree of latitude N43d30'. 🙃
Understanding our authority involves knowing the statutory framework and the true meaning of 'quasi-judicial' rather than just relying on case law and doctrines.
@Norm <div>
Do you count the Old Northwest Corner of Missouri? It is, admittedly, a remonumentation of the 1816 point, but was declared by the US Supreme Court to define the IA-MO boundary and monumented on their order with the cast iron post. Thus I'd call it original to the PLSS.
</div>
I don't see this as an either/or. We need to understand our duties and authorities under the laws, rules, and standard of care in light of case law. If any of those are missing we will fall short.
That would be a reference monument, wouldn't it. The middle of the Missouri River has probably moved a bit in the last couple of centuries.
Or, are you referring to the NW corner of Missouri due north of Fort Osage before the west line of Missouri moved quite a distance. They didn't want to enlarge Iowa, so that area had to be added to the west side of Missouri.
Or. did the line near Fort Osage only extend to the south? Was the line going north further east or west? Which tribes had to be evicted to get to the Missouri River for a boundary north of the intersection of the Kansas and Missouri rivers in what is now KC.
When we are “finders of facts”, in most situations, our “facts” are what we have found, recorded and illustrated based on our interpretation of the evidence. The Courts may have a completely different interpretation of the way that the “facts” are applied and how they view prior decisions. There is a fine line between expressing opinions and crossing the line into practicing law when moving lines.
That is what I was trying to say. It would be more precise to say that we do not determine any facts at all, if we were speaking legally, I suppose.
We need to be clear as to what evidence is objective (I found rebar and cap is a objective. It having the same name and number as shown on a plat is objective.), what that evidence indicates (I think it indicates the corner is here at what I found because it matches the plat records).
Even my measurement of the relative location of the various evidence to each other is an opinion. I tend the think that the existence of the monument it self is a fact, and I suppose that is why I find them so useful. 🙂
The Old NW corner was marked by Sullivan about 1816 at 100 miles north of the mouth of the Kansas River and a line run east to define an area according to a treaty.
After contention over various interpretations the Supreme Court in 1851 (?) ruled that 1816 line was the boundary and had the old line retraced. A cast iron post was set at that corner and smaller ones every 10 miles going east. I've seen the Old NW and some of the smaller ones still in place.
The line was later run west to the Missouri River from that Old NW corner.
