Community Forums

Share:

T 6 N, R 5 E, Fifth Principal Meridian | Double Corners  

Page 1 / 2

Michael Daniels
Posts: 26
Member
(@michael-daniels)
20+ posts
Joined: 3 years ago

T6NR5E

Thoughts on the double corners along the N/S section lines and centerline?

 

23 Replies
LRDay
Posts: 2663
Member
(@ridge)
2,500+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

3 mile method subdivision??  What do the field notes show?

Reply
1 Reply
Michael Daniels
Member
(@michael-daniels)
Joined: 3 years ago

20+ posts
Posts: 26

As far as I have found, nothing regarding the interior of the section.  Unusual subdivision for sure.

Reply
holy cow
Posts: 15115
Member
(@holy-cow)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Looks a lot like some of the overgrown sections ( 1-6)  in Missouri trying to stretch to finally reach a standard parallel.

Reply
3 Replies
LRDay
Member
(@ridge)
Joined: 9 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 2663

I'd agree with that.  But why did they survey all the interior forty and lot lines, some with different chaining on opposite sides of the line?  Can't see the map that well.  Is the whole section lotted?

Reply
Michael Daniels
Member
(@michael-daniels)
Joined: 3 years ago

20+ posts
Posts: 26

The whole section is NOT lotted.  Only the north "half".

Reply
aliquot
Member
(@aliquot)
Joined: 8 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1064

Elongated sections are fairly common. The curious thing here is the method they used for the protracted subdivision. 

Reply
Gene Kooper
Posts: 964
Member
(@gene-kooper)
500+ posts
Joined: 4 years ago

This township is in Arkansas and the GLO Records web site lists five "Original Survey" plats.  The township was originally subdivided in 1824 and both the plat (two identical copies are on the BLM web site) and field notes are online.

Original Survey Plat - 1824

Original Survey - Township Subdivision Field Notes - 1824

There are several "corrections" to acreages on the township plat and those corrections appear to be the reason for all of Sec. 4 being lotted on the 1847 "Original Survey" township subdivision plat.  The northern tier of sections are elongated and the 1824 plat shows the southern "half" of Sec. 4 to be regular.  However, the acreage of the SE1/4 and SW 1/4 were both corrected to be 165.40 acres instead of 160 acres.  In addition, Secs. 9, 16, 21, 28, 29, 32 and 33 were all reported as regular sections but show corrected acreages.

The 1847 "Original Survey" township plat (the GLO Records web site has three copies of this plat, but all are the same) shows all of those sections were lotted, most likely because of the corrected acreages shown on the 1824 township plat exceeded limits.  The southern half of Sec. 33 shows the corrected acreage of the SE1/4 and SW1/4 to both be 161.34 acres.  These corrected acreages appear to be within the limits at the time of the 1847 survey so they were not lotted.

Original Survey Plat - 1847

Unfortunately, the 1847 field notes are not online yet.  There are some other interesting things going on in this township.  There is a red ink outline with comments of "Cancelled" and "Adopted Line" with a bunch of pencil and red ink "X"s.

I did find one "interesting" tidbit about the 1824 township subdivision survey.  It didn't follow the township subdivision protocol that I'm familiar with.  That doesn't mean anything other than I've never worked in an area where the original survey was done in 1824 so this may be a normal way of doing things at that time.

Diagram

 

Reply
2 Replies
Michael Daniels
Member
(@michael-daniels)
Joined: 3 years ago

20+ posts
Posts: 26

It has been my experience that during that time period, the Deputy Surveyors were fairly liberal with the interpretation of their instructions.

Also - and I have NOT researched this for this particular township but - the highlighted boundaries may have something to do with military claims.  I have seen that before.

Reply
Michael Daniels
Member
(@michael-daniels)
Joined: 3 years ago

20+ posts
Posts: 26
thebionicman
Posts: 3058
Member
(@thebionicman)
2,500+ posts
Joined: 6 years ago

I have had more than one verification survey not show up in on-line records. Both had that look, though not identicle. It's worth contacting the BLM and asking them to run it down for you. Not sure who handles your area, but even the wrong office would be a good start.

Reply
1 Reply
aliquot
Member
(@aliquot)
Joined: 8 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1064
Posted by: thebionicman

I have had more than one verification survey not show up in on-line records. Both had that look, though not identicle. It's worth contacting the BLM and asking them to run it down for you. Not sure who handles your area, but even the wrong office would be a good start.


AR is covered by BLM by the Eastern States Office in D.C .

Reply
Page 1 / 2