Twp Sec Rng

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

I would like to see the answers that I get on this.

Hopefully the pro's will chime in.

 

I am currently holding the updated PATENTS to 2 Homesteads.

The Original Names are (John Moore 1909) and (Rosalie Heisey 1909).

Now brought up into my name.

 

The 1930 Plat has Geo. Ross and H. Heisey.

The Plat map did not change any from the 1909 Plat except names..

 

I would like your opinion of where these corners meet in the SW corner of the

NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 SEC. 12 TWP. 22 RNG. 27 West of the 5th Principal Meridian.

 

Plat Map.

1930 Plat.

(click for larger image below)

 

I will add some updates along with explanations as this discussion progressssss's.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Not sure of the details you are looking for, but the 2 properties meet on the west side of the road about 1/4 mile south of the "big black 12".

 

John

[Bill93]

Do you have a more specific question? I don't see anything unusual at first glance. The acreages are all nominal, so no tidbits about odd parcels.

 

The northerly property could be labeled Reo. Ross. I don't see the name Heisey; the SE 1/4 looks like J. C. Henry to me.

 

The only question that comes to mind is whether the road acreage comes out of the eastern property as depicted, or is actually split between the properties as is common in places where the roads are straight, and this type of map might not depict that level of detail.

Edited July 9, 2005 by Bill93

[holograph]

Is this a game? My guess is approximately N36 37 48, W093 48 12.

[+jwahl]

Similar to last, the Center South 1/16 cor of that section is probably near:

 

36-37-47.7 but could be 30 or so feet north, I picked point in the road

93-48-12.56 in line with edge of field and possible fence to the south

NAD83

 

- jlw

[holograph]

There is something unusual about that corner. If you overlay the USGS quad's section lines onto the Terraserver Orthophoto, you can see that the north and south boundaries of the Manley patent line up well -- the southern limit of the clearing more or less aligns with the USGS section line (solid red line in the image) and the northern limit of the clearing aligns with a computed quarter-mile line on the north (dotted red line in the image).

 

The eastern boundary of the Manley patent should be the same as the boundary between Flat Creek and Mineral (shown in dashed black per the USGS quad). However the eastern limit of the clearing falls to the west of the boundary. Either the USGS quad is inaccurate, or the property survey didn't set the property line on the Flat Creek - Mineral boundary, or the property owners lost the property line and have a potential dispute between themselves.

 

The corner in question should be located where the yellow circle indicates.

 

Note: the dotted white lines are the UTM grid lines from Terraserver.

 

[+jwahl]

My opinion is that the map shown in the original post is a rough schematic only and based on a perfect township as to the section lines, and very crude determination of roads. If you look at the roads shown, they could never have been where shown. This is typical of mid 1800's era atlases which are composities of the land ownership and very rough wheelbarrow type surveys of the roads and habitations.

 

Thus overlaying that onto the current quad or ortho isn;t necessarily meaningful.

 

Base on my experience, but not a dead cinch, there are sufficient occupation lines shown to believe that the N and S centerline of the section and its relationship to the section lines and all of it adding up together places the likely position at longitude I gave earlier in line with edge of field and probably a fenceline to the south.

 

Also the N-S position may be indicated by remnants of a fence to the west of where the road curves off to the south.

 

Occupation lines fairly easily locate the North 1/4 corner of the section and the South 1/4 section corner which define the N-S centerline.

 

There is nothing that obvious between then defining the E-W centerline or the corner we are trying to find. These can at best come from apparent fragments of occupation lines in relation to proper distance location..

 

- jlw

Edited July 10, 2005 by jwahl

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

First,

Thank you all very much.

I will go into a little more detail on this game

 

It is Henry(Roasalie Heisey,80 acres) and Ross(John Moore, 120 acres) in the 1930 Plat I posted(good catch).

 

And it is small acreage's but........the principle is what I am after(Truth).

 

The Original Township Plat from 13 April,1848.

Variations.

North boundary 7* 18' East.

East,South and West boundary 7* 15'.

Subdivision lines 7* 30'.

Aggregate area 22917.93 acres.

A normal Township 6 miles square as can be.

 

The coordinates posted hit very,very close to a Stone(14"x7"x3")

placed by A.W. Rogers(Survey # 35)for Tate and Porter

For the Patent's in 1906.

Variation 6*.

 

We will call this Stone A.

36* 37' 48.98812"

93* 48' 11.59411"

1489'

 

Now with a little more of the details this might make more cents?,scents,since I can't remember how to speel. :D

 

And the Road has been changed,north of it's westermost point on the plat.

but is still the controlling line and point

Stone B.

Edited July 10, 2005 by GEO*Trailblazer 1

[holograph]

My opinion is that the map shown in the original post is a rough schematic only and based on a perfect township as to the section lines, and very crude determination of roads.  If you look at the roads shown, they could never have been where shown.  This is typical of mid 1800's era atlases which are composities of the land ownership and very rough wheelbarrow type surveys of the roads and habitations. 

 

Thus overlaying that onto the current quad or ortho isn;t necessarily meaningful.

 

jwahl, I overlaid the current USGS Quad on to the Terraserver Orthophoto, not the plat, since it was obvious that the plat was schematic. Technically, I overlaid the USGS DRG in UTM projection, registered to and at the same scale as the Orthophoto which is also in the UTM projection.

 

The USGS quad contained the section lines and the political boundary between Flat Creek (township?) and Mineral (township?). GEO's plat seemed to indicate that the the political boundary would also be the property boundary. I simply drew the political boundary as shown on the USGS quad, and made the assumption that it was also the property boundary, and that is was more or less accuately drawn on the USGS quad. I then added the line 0.25 mile north of and parallel to the southern section line.

 

The following image shows more of the DRG detail that I edited out of the first image. What's interesting is that GEO's point A (plotted and outlined in yellow) seems to be no where near the apparent fence lines. I have no idea what point B is supposed to be. This game is a little too much like mind reading...

 

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Please don't feel I am trying to make you read my mind.

I am only wanting your suggestions without (a) specific question.

 

You can not place the Old Plats into the New programming without error's,

the Azimuth lines will not jive.

Azimuth 1.76* approximately.

 

This picture,if it could be skewed (1.76*)to the proper angle shows the GPS tracks of the current roads compared to 1909,pretty darn close if you ask me.

That is the reason for the survey,(a detailed map).

 

Stone B is near BM 5HBS, 1492'.

It is the Original patent corner.

 

Between 1906 and 1933 not a whole lot was done.

In 1933 the Missouri State Coordinate System was develpoed by Dr. O.S. Adams,a mathematician in the division of Geodesy,U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.

 

Adopted in 1965 by Missouri Legislature.

In 1984 the statute was revised to add the definition of the Missouri Coodinate System of 1983.

 

The Statute names 2 legal systems,the older system based upon the Clark Spheroid of 1866 and the North American Datum of 1927 and the newer system based upon the GRS 1980 and the North American Datum of 1983.

Either was used until July 1990,but after that date only the new system may be used.

 

The proper use of the system depends on 3 fators.

1) The surveyor's knowledge of the system;

2)The end user's knowledge of the system;

3)he existance of accurate horizontal control on which to base coordinate determinations.

 

I kinda knew this would get deep into discussion and is the main reason I wanted to try and make it fun.otherwise it seem's like work.

 

OH yea I have updated all the Horizontal Control for this area.

 

I am working on the Image holograph supplied will update soon.

 

[holograph]

That's interesting, because I thought the rule of thumb was, once a corner or monument was set, regardless of surveying errors or later changes to coordinates or conventions, that the monument on the ground controlled the position of the property boundary.

 

I had heard that government resurveys that moved property lines were quite rare.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

That's interesting, because I thought the rule of thumb was, once a corner or monument was set, regardless of surveying errors or later changes to coordinates or conventions, that the monument on the ground controlled the position of the property boundary.

 

I had heard that government resurveys that moved property lines were quite rare.

That to is my understanding of the law and the rules set forth.

 

But they(State) are trying to move these lines on me.

And according to their own rules you can't.

 

My delima,that is.

 

The First time it was moved was from Stone B to stone A.

1930's for correction's of the 7.5* Range line and to run the 1.76*.

 

That is where the deeds(1930's) come in, it say's

From the POB,SW corner 188' east to(now stone A) of said 40 to the Old Highway P,stone B.

Then North 685',thence west 420' then back to the POB,stone A.

 

I also have found ALOT ofthe

HISTORIC TREES THAT WERE BLAZED AND HACKED.

That is part of the other work From the Original POB (of the Public Lands).

EH2910 LOUISIANA PURCHASE MONUMENT.(Miles off here).

 

To me finding these Old Historic tree's and original stone's is a treasure hunt in itself.

And have just started to Google Earth them all into visible data.

 

If you need more info please ask.

I have been working on this quite a while........but am and will stay adverse to the proposed changes.

I will go by what the deed's and Patent's say.

 

And thank you guy's again for your help and support.

Edited July 11, 2005 by GEO*Trailblazer 1

[Z15]

That's interesting, because I thought the rule of thumb was, once a corner or monument was set, regardless of surveying errors or later changes to coordinates or conventions, that the monument on the ground controlled the position of the property boundary.

 

Set by who is the question? Anyone can mark a land boundary and when its in dispute the courts have to settle it. Once the courts get involved, there is no telling where it will come out. The judge may or may not use common sense to arrive at a ruling, you may be 100% right but he could rule with the other side. Been done.

 

I am not trying to get into this problem but I often hear assumptions being made that are not in reality. A good friend got into a pi--ing contest over land boundaries some years back and he came out on the lossing end. Naturally both parties think there were right as did both surveyors but the Judge had the final say, "move the road and fence, retore the land back to orignal condition!" The problem was one surveyor found old pins and took them as gospel, other survey retraced the complete section and proved the found pins were erronous. Since no record of the set pins could be found, they had no meaning what-so-ever in the mind of the court. Pay lawyer and surveyor $20,000 please. Next case?

Edited July 11, 2005 by Z15

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Yep your right.

I could be right,dead right.

Your right!

 

I have SPENT$$$, and did GET(&&**% and Have been a part of this.

 

BARRY,STONE COUNTY MO.

 

CONTINUED

 

PAGE 1

 

But the funny thing is now,unless the property touch the boundry of the Forest(which it does by (PATENT),I am ^&+*&@%#$$&().

 

But wanted to let people know exactly what is going on.

 

DO YOU REALLY OWN YOUR LAND?

PATENT The only perfect title to land

 

What about this new debate on them being able to claim emminent domain on properties they want to make into parks,malls,ect.

 

The Original Stone B was placed in the 1800's.

Stone A was placed By the County Surveyor,A.W.Rogers in 1906.

All the info comes from the(PATENT'S), abstract of title and the recorded county records.

 

And they still want to move it over 400+' in one place,I will give a little but 400'.

 

And it has not been before the judge yet!

Edited July 11, 2005 by GEO*Trailblazer 1

[holograph]

That's really awful. The problem with a dispute with the government is that they get to set the rules.

[+BuckBrooke]

I hadn't run into the issue of a Land Patent before. That will take more research. I'm intrigued. I'm sorry that your troubles are so interesting, Geo.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

I am glad you have learned a little hopefully or will soon.

Anyway,I think all have a calling and this is my time to shine no matter what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I love My Country(Land)and will defend it to death.

I belive my land is the Country and the country is my land.

I finally got 11+ years together in one image...

Check this out.

1,2,3,4...5...6..7 order control.

Thank you Houston!!

 

This is my model of the

GEOID*

GEO*

*

 

 

I hope it intrigues the mind.

If I could only pour my thought's into my words and so eliquently portay the totality of this subject I would be a genious.

 

But alas I am not.

Sorry for the big picture but the next size smaller is too small.

Edited July 12, 2005 by GEO*Trailblazer 1

[Z15]

Well if its government land, the BLM could come in and set the boundaries and that will be the end of that.

 

What being boiling around here for years.

There is native Indian land (Ojibwa reservation) about 30 miles from me. About 20 yrs back the BLM came in here and retraced the boudaries. They would not accept many of the section corners that were reset by other state licensed Surveyors and recorded in offical records. So there now exists, double corners in most places. The BLM had no state licensed Surveyors doing the work and did not reconize any of them. So the Indian tribe uses the BLM corners and everyone else is stuck wondering what they should use. Its a mess that has lots of pepole po'd but what can they do about. NOTHING, the Indain land is a Sovereign Nation. They don't care about the other corners, the federal gov't says what there the corners are and thats it. They have jurisdictation on that land. There are roads that have run down section lines for years that are now on reservation land.

 

There has been an ongoing fight with the state and local gov't on who pays taxes and to whom. They don't pay any state taxes and they want any landowners within thier land to pay property taxes to them. They have even talked about shutting down about 10 miles of US Hwy 41 because it runs thru Indian Land and the state only has a permits to construct (no ROW or easements) dating back to the 1930 from Bureau of Indian Affairs. So US41 is there are the pleasure of the tribe, they have approached the state in the past on relocating but the cost would be in the millions of $$. The tribe wants it because a large portion borders Lake Superior. Everythime new tribe leaders are elected, more problem come up depending on how radical those elected people are.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not bashing the Indians, just showing what a mess this can be for land owners who reside near this land.

 

I wish you luck...

 

Thier web site

Edited July 12, 2005 by Z15

[evenfall]

Geo, While I appreciate you asking the forum for their thoughts and advice, there is not a one of us here who should be advising you. Not One.

 

You need an Attorney skilled in Legal Property Issues and a Licensed Professional Surveyor under your retainer to commission a survey for you if needed and to properly research what has been done in the past and by Whom, in order to see what dispute you can make.

 

I would be weary of even assuming I know what Adverse Possession will truly mean in this instance. It really all is open to interpretation when based upon the historical happenstance in each instance. What has been done in the past and what is being attempted to be done now, and by whom on both parts is very much a big deal here.

 

Please, If you have not done so already, get some local Professionals to help you with this. We are all not properly qualified nor close enough to your Locale to properly say anything about this in any way, and it truly looks like you are wrangling with what will become a legal matter in some way before you completely resolve it.

 

Sorry, but we are not going to be helpful by telling you anything, In fact, our speculations could even stand a chance of being more incorrect for you than anything else.

 

Good luck with this, I hope it turns out.

 

Rob

Edited July 15, 2005 by evenfall

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Yes Thank you all very much.

 

I am not looking for legal advice from anyone here.

This is merely a discussion into a deep and touchy subject.

 

There is no way for me to give you all the detail of the matter either.

 

I will go on a little more though if you all do not mind.

 

By math and by the N.G.S.(USC&GS) VERTICAL CONTROL DATA.

It appears correct.

 

My main thought here is that I have often heard it said the OLD TIMERS were way off.

I am here to tell you they(in most cases) were very precise.

 

Check out the RANGE DESIGNATION [R 26W]it is in the correct spot by math and survey.

[evenfall]

Geo,

 

Regardless of Legal Matters, we are not qualified to fill your head with thoughts regarding deep and touchy subjects which are not geocaching nor benchmark hunting matters.

 

While we do discuss the matters of various and sundry survey methods here in general ways, and specifically about the quality of markers themselves, we really are way off topic when we are talking about specific boundary surveys, and even more so when we are discussing specific boundary surveys that belong to or are somehow related to us.

 

It is dangerous to construe anything at all from that sort of discussion based on the legal ramifications it can have.

 

Deep and touchy subjects of the nature this has been shown to be, are not our topic here Geo, and I would not want any of us to construe anything one way or another.

 

You prefaced this as being about your property in the first place and then admitted to it as a guessing game which is now a deep and touchy subject. We really should not plying with this sort of thing Geo.

 

Sorry, but this is how I feel about it. PLSS Cadastral Descriptions and such is just beyond the scope here, when it starts to play into your property or mine.

 

Thanks for understanding Geo,

 

Rob

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

I understand very well.

Yes we are now that I think of it(off topic).

This is now closed.

 

Thanks again all.