The Weathered Quarter-Corner Stone and the 1998 Fence
A crew is retracing the south boundary of Section 8, T20S, R25W. It finds the original 1890 GLO stone at the SW corner and the original stone at the SE corner, both marked and in place; both are standard corners on the south boundary of the township. The 1890 plat gives the south line of Section 8 as 80.00 chains, with the south quarter corner at 40.00 chains from the SW corner. In 2025 the measured distance from the SW corner to the SE corner is 79.62 chains. No monument is found at the record position for the south quarter corner. A weathered 18x12x4-inch stone is found 39.46 chains from the SW corner, 0.35 chain from where single proportionate measurement would place the corner. The stone has a faint 1/4 chisel on its north face. A 12-inch oak bearing tree described in the 1890 notes as "N45E 22 lks" stands 22 links from the stone at that bearing; the pits are gone. The adjoiner's fence, built in 1998, runs 0.4 chain north of the stone across the west half of the section and returns to the stone.
1. Is the south quarter corner lost or found? Set out the evidence and reach a decision.
Read the worked answer
Legal standard. A corner is "lost" only when it cannot be located by reasonable search and the available evidence. Proportionate measurement is the remedy for a lost corner - it is not a tool for choosing between a found monument and a computed position.
Evidence for the stone:
- Physical description match. An 18x12x4-inch stone is consistent with an 1890 GLO quarter-corner monument, and the faint "1/4" chisel is the mark the deputy surveyor would have cut.
- Bearing tree. The 1890 notes call for a 12-inch oak at N45E, 22 links. A 12-inch oak stands at exactly that bearing and distance. A bearing tree is contemporaneous, independent corroboration and is often the strongest evidence available after the pits weather away.
- Positional plausibility. It lies 39.46 chains from the SW corner, only 0.35 chain from the proportionate position - within the error an 1890 chain survey can show.
Evidence against: the pits are gone and the chisel is faint. Those facts reduce certainty but do not destroy identification; GLO pits routinely disappear in 135 years of cultivation.
Decision: the corner is found, not lost. The stone and its bearing tree are the corner. Single proportionate measurement is the wrong procedure here, and using it would move the corner roughly 23 ft.
2. If the corner is held at the stone, where is it and how is the 0.16-chain difference handled? Contrast this with the proportionate result.
Read the worked answer
Hold the monument. The corner is at 39.46 chains from the SW corner, as found.
Handle the excess. Measured SW to SE is 79.62 chains. With the corner at 39.46, the east half measures 79.62 − 39.46 = 40.16 chains against a record 40.00 - an excess of 0.16 chain (about 10.6 ft). Because the corner's position is fixed by the monument, the excess is held in the remaining portion, the east half. The west half is not adjusted, and the east half is not adjusted either, except that it now measures 40.16; the discrepancy is absorbed where it falls, not redistributed. Record distances are evidence of the original survey's intent, not a mandate to move a found corner.
Proportionate comparison. If the stone had been rejected as not the original, single proportionate measurement between the two found section corners would give 79.62 × (40.00 / 80.00) = 39.81 chains from the SW.
Why the difference matters. The two answers differ by 0.35 chain, about 23 ft. That shifts the quarter corner, changes the bearing of the center line, and moves every aliquot line in the section. It also changes where the adjoiner's west-half occupation line sits relative to the true boundary. Getting this decision wrong propagates through the whole section.
3. What weight does the 1998 fence carry, and how should the surveyor proceed with the adjoiner?
Read the worked answer
The fence is evidence of occupation, not a monument of the original survey. A 1998 fence is recent. It does not reestablish a GLO corner, and it cannot override a found original monument. Where it runs 0.4 chain (about 26 ft) north of the stone across the west half and returns to the stone, it more likely reflects the adjoiner's assumption about where the line ran than any original Survey evidence.
But it is not nothing. Long occupation can support boundary doctrines that belong to courts, not surveyors: adverse possession, agreed boundaries, estoppel. Kansas's adverse-possession period is 15 years, and a fence in place since 1998 may implicate that doctrine on its face - which is exactly why the surveyor should not decide it in the field. The surveyor's job is to locate and monument the record line and to report the occupation accurately.
Procedure: (a) hold and monument the stone; (b) locate the fence and show it, and the 0.4-chain offset, on the plat; (c) note the discrepancy plainly and identify the occupation line as such; (d) discuss the finding with the adjoiner and document the conversation; (e) refer the parties to counsel and the title company for any claim that the fence line has become the boundary. Do not move the corner to the fence, and do not omit the fence because it is inconvenient.