California Surveyors Forums

Here is a summary of the situation in T1S, R1W, Humboldt Meridian:

1882 - Original survey by Haughn

1886 - Investigation by GLO resulted in a rejection of his survey. Note that Haughn set come corners in the township, but apparently not all corners.

1888 - Patent in Section 10

1889 - "New Survey" by GLO surveyor Smith

1890 - Patent in Section 9

1891 - Smith plat approved

A local superior court ruled that the 1888 patent had to be based on the Haughn plat, even though his survey had been rejected in 1886.

The question now is in regards to the 1890 patent. Since the Smith plat had not yet been approved, would the 1890 patent be per the Haughn survey, even though rejected OR would it be based on the 1889 survey by Smith since his survey was done on the ground, even though his survey would not be approved until the following year?

Does anyone know of any court decision that might be pertinent to this situation?

Unless you have evidence that the boundaries of the 1890 patent were originally established on the ground per monuments of the 1882 survey, I would base your survey on the 1890 survey. Even though it hadn't yet been approved, the monuments for the Smith survey were on the ground, likely the most visible and therefore the more likely to have been used by the entryman in Section 9.

No case cite, sorry.

like it or not, how can you reject the Court ruling, without a higher Court ruling?

The Court has ruled. Seems like a valid ruling, considering even if rejected at a later date, at the date of Patent, there had not been a another survey to lead the owner otherwise. for the common owner, the knowledge of a GLO survey being rejected, is likely not commonly know.

if that portion of Section 9 had been surveyed on the ground at the time of patent, would it be reasonable that the owner relied on the latest survey?
Dates and the details are likely key to the solution.