California Surveyors Forums

I think we are barred from posting work product on this forum.
I'll forward the maps to anyone who requests them, once I have them

.

Olin-I would appreciate a copy too.

karolysurveyor at gmail dot com

Dave,

I sent it at 9 this morning. Maybe it is in your junk mail?

It just came through.

Thanks.

A little different subject:

Just read Lucas' article in the POB magazine and is excellent, as always.

Talking about ROW lines and the King does not always get his total.

Maybe monuments mean things?

24550 Old Santa Cruz Hwy
Los Gatos, CA 95033

37° 6'47.83"N
121°58'19.53"W

Lines actually run and marked on the ground may be proved by any evidence, direct or circumstantial, competent to prove any other disputed fact, and where markers of the original survey have been destroyed, secondary evidence as to the authenticity of their relocation is admissible. California recognizes these rules to be sound. (Chandler v. Hibberd, supra, 165 Cal.App.2d at p. 55.)

"In a subsequent appeal in the same case, the Supreme Court stated that even if [a]ll trace of that [corner] monument has disappeared, and the exact place where it was erected cannot now be identified, those circumstances do not destroy the survey nor justify the court in disregarding it, when enough can be ascertained therefrom and identified on the ground to approximately locate the corner. (Weaver v. Howatt (1915) 171 Cal. 302, 307.)"

"Approximately" seems to be in conflict with earlier discussion of the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I don't think secondary evidence such as fence corners and common report monuments meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard which was never meant to be used in civil matters anyway.

CA Code of Civil Procedure Section 2077:

Section Two Thousand and Seventy-seven. The following are
the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real
property, when the construction is doubtful and there are no other
sufficient circumstances to determine it:
One--Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars
in the description, the addition of others which are indefinite,
unknown, or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be
construed by the first mentioned particulars.
Two--When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or
monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines,
angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.
Three--Between different measurements which are inconsistent with
each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that
of lines paramount to both.
Four--When a road, or stream of water not navigable, is the
boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road or the
thread of the stream are included in the conveyance, except where the
road or thread of the stream is held under another title.
Five--When tide water is the boundary, the rights of the grantor
to ordinary high-water mark are included in the conveyance. When a
navigable lake, where there is no tide, is the boundary, the rights
of the grantor to low-water mark are included in the conveyance.
Six--When the description refers to a map, and that reference is
inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appears
that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map
is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.


It all boils down to the non-recorded, or un-called-for, "monument" that just pops up from out of seemingly "nowhere." In many parts of California, there are troves of private records housed in the archives of some local office. And in our respective localities, we all know where those records are. In most instances, those private records contain the pedigree of that "un-called-for" or "non-record" monument, thus providing the missing link in the chain of evidence.

Hypotheses aside, monuments are paramount. But nearly every map that I review shows some surveyor calling monuments of a predecessor out of place in favor of the words in the legal description.

"Absolute correctness in the surveys will not, and cannot be attained, and that is a matter for both the government and the purchaser to assume this fact at the outset, and be governed by fixed monuments, instead of leaving everything open to change in the future, when new and more careful surveys might be practicable."
-Thomas M. Cooley, Britton v. Ferry, 14 Mich. 53, 65 (Mich. 1866)

I took algebra in 8th grade, and I'll never forget the demonstration my teacher gave to the class one morning. "Class, I am going to walk out the classroom door, but decrease each step by one-half. How long will it take me to get out the door?" The answer is he would never get to the door.

Just as with a line, introducing a point between two points would only serve to create two lines.

It all works if you have some guidance from some sort of professional advice. That's the way it is done around here, does not cut it;

and what was the original intent? seems like quite a few get hung up on measurements and forget about "Intent". and can you really measure a position within 0.02'? How many surveys are truly performed using the techniques to achieve a positional tolerance of 0.02'?

Just rambling on

PS, I didn't read the original question to be relating to the PLSS

man I hate it when I post something, having missed the 3 pages of posting that follow the first page.

I'm working on a line right now that dates back to 1850. Records do not indicate anybody every tried to monument that line until the 1940s. And guess what, those 1940s monuments don't line up to well (few tenths here and there). So which is right? This 1940s monument or that one? Are the 1940s monuments even on the 1850 line? Who knows?

I'll take a faithful attempt, a monument, over some strange unproven counterlogic any day, even when the line is broken unto segments and not straight across several thousand feet. Monuments mean something.

Unless the Surveyor went out there in the 1940s just for fun then he probably did it for someone and if no one has complained since then they should be honored.

Olin,
Good share on the Bloxham case.
Cheers,
Clark