closing section corner position

[goodgps]

I have a weird mathmatical dilema.

In Section 4;

I measure the east line between perpetuated (original) corners to be 5395.32'

The GLO and Field notes hold 40 chains on the south portion of this line.

The GLO plat shows 81.57 chains [5383.62']

The goverment field notes call out 81.44 chains {5375.04'}

To Reset the east quarter corner;
If I hold the GLO plat distance I should place the 1/4 corner at 2645.74' north of the southeast corner
HOWEVER;
If I hold the govt field notes, I should place the 1/4 corner at 2649.96' north from the southeast corner.

The ground is open, so there are no fences or anything else to help this decision.
What math am I doing wrong here ???

signed
"Stumpy Brushwhaker"

[VANCE]

Based on your numbers, your math is fine.
As for what to hold, the plate should be based off of the field notes. I would check the date of the plate and compare it to the field notes date, just to make sure there has not been a resurvey of the Section.

[CalifCarl]

It's a closing section, aren't you going to hold 2640' from the south east section corner?

Answer to my own question. I guess not

3-87. To subdivide a section into quarter sections, run straight lines from the established quarter-section corners to the opposite quarter-section corners. The point of intersection of the lines thus run will be the corner common to the several quarter sections, or the legal center of the section.

Upon the lines closing on the north and west boundaries of a regular township the quarter-section corners were established originally at 40 chains to the north or west of the last interior section corners. The excess or deficiency in measurement was thrown into the half mile next to township or range line, as the case may be. [If such quarter-section corners are lost they should be reestablished by proportionate measurement based upon the [original record.]]

Where there are double sets of section corners on township and range lines, the quarter-section corners for the sections south of the township line and east of the range line usually were not established in the original surveys. In subdividing such sections new quarter-section corners are required, so placed as to suit the calculations of the areas that adjoin the township boundary, as indicated upon the official plat, adopting proportional measurements where the new measurements of the north or west boundaries of the section differ from the record distances.

[dmi]

What you are posting is confusing to me. There is plenty to consider and Jerry points this out with possible methods to detemine a correct method.
Are you certain there is no evidence of the 1/4 corner? There are other factors as well. This is not a swamp and overflow survey, is it? Is there a supplement plat involved? is there a completion survey involved? too many factor to say without complete knowledge of the fact set....
Math seems fine, what is needed is an understanding as to what was conveyed an wha line are claimed ...... evidence is the answer not math..

[Gromatici]

I found a section of Clark where the Courts held that the Plat holds over a description, but I didn't think it applied very well. I'm also inclined to think that you can check the distance against the acreage methods of calculation to come up with the best answer - if you have no other recourse than to use single proportion. (2 Chains north of a creek ravine isn't so bad)

Carl:

It's true that he will use the record 2640 form the southeast section corner to restore the E1/4 corner, but at a PROPORTIONATE MEASURE. The reason he has an issue is because he needs an overall distance from section corner to section corner to determine the factor to use when "matching the chain of the original Surveyor". Depending on which source he holds (Plat or Notes), will move the 1/4 corner north or south.

[goodgps]

Today, we dug a huge hole 7 feet long and 2.5 feet deep. we found traces of redwood, glass, brick chunks and a lot of hard pan.
There were some early resurveys where an old redwood was found. These distances are just as radical as my calculations. I'm very tempted to split and prorate the "resurveyed" dimensions, as being the best evidence of the surveyors who last saw the redwood post.
Certainly "math" isnt the primary answer. But math can be used to surmise that last known position by previous surveyors.

I'm mentally never too old to dig a big hole, but man ! my hands are killing me.

Go"old"

[dmi]

KINDA HARD TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE CORNER IS WHEN THE FEE FOR THE JOB IS $1,500. i'M JUST SAYING.....

[goodgps]

Well DMI is correct on this one.
No money to be made here. And I found "retracement" surveys done by an old civil. over ten years time, he disagrees with the position of a "found" redwood post, by 4 feet . . . almost exactly the difference in a prorated measurement. Once he comes from the south, the next time he comes from the north.

THEN !!!! I found an older survey, from an olde tymer, who found the redwood post, and has bearings and distances to the North and a mile East.

I happen to know this guy used to turn his angles 12 times with a one minute gurley transit. His chaining wasn't so bad either.

So I plop a little geometry in the cad, and lo and behold, I come up with a spot where his angles fit and that spot is the exact point that i used from an "average" of old and some modern retracements. Just a coincedence for sure, but I know we were diggin in the right spot.

Proration and Double proportion are the LAST methods for sure.
I wish my olde tyme buddy were still alive, he usually made swing ties in his field books.

:~(

I'll take an accurate 1 minute Gurley transit over a precisely wrong static GPS shot anyday.

"Broke" but trying to be "Good"