Page 1 of 1

A Tale of Two Sixteenth Corners...

Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:32 pm
by Dave Karoly, PLS
The names and details have been changed to protect the innocent.

In 1895 Smith Timber Company Surveyor Grabowski set the southeast 1/16th corner of Section 25 using compass and chain and he marked the lines in from the south and out to the east for harvest. The southeast quarter of the southeast quarter was owned by others, the timber company had the other three quarter-quarters. Harvest happened and no one objected.

In 1940 the landowner in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter used the timber company monument to write a deed selling the westerly 500', "beginning at the 1/16th corner, thence east on the 1/16th line 500', thence south..." There is an old wire fence at about 505' from the Grabowski monument.

In 1965 a surveyor, Mr. Lord, working for the owner of the former Smith Timber Company lands found the 1895 1/16th corner and perpetuated it with a concrete monument up 2' but other priorities got in the way of filing the Record of Survey. Again no one objected. Part of his reasoning for accepting the monument was deeds in the area used it.

In 1977 a surveyor, Johann Strauss (now deceased), determined an alternate location for the east quarter section corner which dragged the subdivisional lines northerly in the section and the 1895 surveyor wasn't terribly precise. Mr. Strauss shows a dimension point northwest 90' from the existing 1895 1/16th corner on his filed Record of Survey, no monument set.

In 1990 a new surveyor, Mr. Mercator, working for the same owner as Mr. Lord, sets a pipe and cap complete with the same owner information at the Strauss 1/16th corner. So now we have two monuments representing the same 1/16th corner.

Is this sort of foolishness what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he conceived of the PLSS? Or better stated, "quit changing the answer, it's a boundary problem, not a title problem."

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:26 pm
by land butcher
Too many surveyors believe my new msmt is better than yours was therefore your mon is wrong and I'm right Ignoring the holding of monuments.

A block in Orange county was originally surveyed by putting all the slop in the last northerly lot - decades later even the county surveyor agreed. Move ahead a decade or so and the County Surveyor says no all lots have to be prorated - I don't care where the fences are at or what happened in the past.

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:16 am
by Stephen Johnson
land butcher wrote:Too many surveyors believe my new msmt is better than yours was therefore your mon is wrong and I'm right Ignoring the holding of monuments.

A block in Orange county was originally surveyed by putting all the slop in the last northerly lot - decades later even the county surveyor agreed. Move ahead a decade or so and the County Surveyor says no all lots have to be prorated - I don't care where the fences are at or what happened in the past.
I remember that particular not too bright county surveyor(The latter one) being mentioned here before.
I do believe if I were surveying on that particular subdivision we might be having in a knock down drag out.

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:24 am
by Jim Frame
I have no qualms about accepting the Grabowski SE1/16 corner as marking the boundary under a number of doctrines. But let's say that you accept the Strauss E1/4 corner and are asked to subdivide the NE1/4 of the SE1/4. Do you establish the C-N-SE1/64 corner by proportioning from the Grabowski corner, or do you allow the Strauss E1/4 corner to pull the SE1/16 corner north?