Rivers vs. Lozeau Quickie

May 27, 2009

Posted By Steve Adams on 5/26/2009 at 10:14 PM

Rivers vs. Lozeau was brought up recently, along with Adams vs. Hoover, so I went to try to refresh my memory on those two cases as appealed.

Of course Dykes vs. Arnold, and Adams show respect for what has been done in the past, even if it was not done by the Manual. Both of these court-accepted monuments set by "non-Manual" methods were set by County Surveyors.

Is this significant? Do aliquot corners set by private surveyors carry less weight than those set by County Surveyors? Even if the private surveyor is the first surveyor to monument the position, and subsequently folks have accepted and occupied to that position?

It seems that the Rivers case is stating that once the 8 exterior corner are set, all the aliquot corners must be at the math location.

Did Moorehead's (Rivers vs. Lozeau) corners fail because they were not set by the County Surveyor, or was it because the U.S. Forestry Service was involved?

Either the Rivers court (per their comments) thought that all those aliquot corners were actually set by the GLO surveyor, or they think that once those 8 exterior corner are set, the rest is math.

So, should private surveyors give little or no weight to aliquot corners set by private surveyors that do not fall at the Manual-prescribed geographic position? (i.e only County Surveyors can be the first surveyor).

Or should we just say that the Rivers case is just an "outlier"?

To read the rest of this thread go to www.i-boards.com/bnp/pob/messages.asp?MsgID=1417192&ThreadID=134224&IsResponse=False#1417192.