5. Monuments found at the two extremes of a township line are entitled to no more controlling influence in determining the actual location of an intermediate line than the section corners established along the line. All original monuments established in connection with the field notes and plats must be referred to in order to define the locality of the line.

McClintock v. Rogers, 11 Ill. 279.

6. The corners established by the original surveyors of public lands by authority of the United States are conclusive as to the boundaries of sections and divisions thereof; and no error in placing them can be corrected by any survey made by individuals or a state surveyor. Arnier v. Wallace, 28 Miss. 556.

In ascertaining the lost corner of a section, recourse must be had to the unobliterated marks of the original survey, the field notes and plats and subsequent surveys made under their guidance. If only a portion of one of the boundary lines leading to the lost corner on a township line has been obliterated, the remaining portion must be considered established as marked, and the corner must be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be at the point where the marked line if continued would intersect the township line But if the lost corner is proved to have been at another point, the lost portion of the boundary must be ascertained by running a straight line from the point where the marks disappear to that

corner.

Billingley v. Bates, 30 Ala. 378.

7. In determining the line between the quarters of a section, the quarter post established by the government surveyors must govern in all cases where its location can be ascertained.

Vroman v. Dewey, 23 Wis. 530.

Britton v. Ferry, 14 Mich. 53.

8. In re-establishing a lost quarter post on a section line, any difference in the length of such line by actual

measure as compared with that indicated by the government survey should be divided between the parts in proportion to their respective lengths as shown by that

survey.

Jones v. Kimble, 19 Wis. 429.

9. If the distance between recognized government corners as originally established overruns or underruns that given in the field notes, it should be divided pro rata between the intervening sections. The original field notes should be the main guide. Section lines being frequently deflected, the true corners must be tested by east and west distances from the recognized government corners yet standing in the same township as well as by north and south distances.

Martz v. Williams, 67 Ill. 306.

10. Unknown corners must be found by the corroborative testimony of all known corners with as little departure as may be from the system adopted on the original survey, without giving preponderance to the testimony of any one monument above another.

In re-establishing lost corners between remote corners of the same survey, when the whole length of the line is found to vary from the length called for; we are not permitted to presume that the variance arose from the defective survey of any part, but must conclude in the absence of circumstances showing the contrary that it arose from the imperfect measurement of the whole line, and distribute such variance between the several subdivisions of the whole line in proportion to their respective lengths.

Moreland v. Page, 2 Clarkes, Iowa, 139.

11. Quarter posts of the government survey are to be as much respected as the corners of townships or sections however distant from the center line.

Campbell v. Clark, 8 Mo. 558.

12. There was a mistake in the government survey of a section by which the quarter section line and the meander

line of a river were shown on the official plat to be one and the same line, being the boundary line of the fractional lots. As a matter of fact they were a considerable distance apart. There was no question as to the location of the quarter section corners. In a suit to determine the ownership of the land between the quarter section line and the river, it was held that the quarter section line should be adhered to as the more certain call, and that where the lines of a survey can be run from well ascertained and established monuments, they are to control and govern a description delineated on a plat, although the quantity in the fraction fell short of the amount laid down in the plat about as much as there was land contained between the quarter line and the river.

Martin v. Carlin, 19 Wis. 454.

13. When a deed designates the land conveyed as one of the subdivisions known in the United States survey, as, for instance, a quarter, half-quarter or quarter-quarter section, the presumption is that the parties intend that the tract shall be ascertained in the same manner as is done in the government surveys.

Not so, where the deed conveys a tract of land not known in that system of surveys, as, for instance, the east half of a lot, or of a quarter-quarter section.

Cogan v. Cook, 22 Minn. 142.

14. The defendant sold the north half of a lot which is bounded on the west side by the Au Gres river. But the river is not straight at this point, and the north line of the lot is longer than the south line.

The bill demands the north half of the lot, and the north half must mean the north half in quantity divided from the remainder by an east and west line.

Au Gres Boom Co. v. Whitney, 26 Mich. 44.

15. It is a question of fact to be determined by all the surrounding circumstances whether the land between the

meander line and the shore of the lake or water course is

included in the survey.

Shoemaker v. Hatch, 13 Nev. 267.

16. The lines run to divide sections into halves and quarters, if erroneous, may be corrected, for they are subdivided by law; and if the officer in running the subdivision line makes a mistake, it can be corrected by running the line according to law.

Nolin v. Palmer, 21 Ala. 66.

17. An original township was divided into sections "by running through the same, each way, parallel lines at the end of every two miles, and making a corner at the end of every mile," and afterward a supplemental survey was made under a subsequent statute, which directed that these two mile blocks should be subdivided by running straight lines from the corners thus marked to the opposite corresponding corners. Held, that where the original mile corners in a certain block can be clearly identified, the courses of lines of subdivision within the block cannot be determined by proof of monuments, blazes, or other witness marks found in other blocks in the township.

Ginn v. Brandon, 29 Ohio St. 656.

18. When a navigable stream intervenes in running the lines of a section, the surveyor stops at that point, and does not continue across the river. The fraction thus made is complete, and its contents can be ascertained.

Therefore, when there is a discrepancy between the corners of the section as established by the United States, and the lines as run and marked, the latter do not yield to the former.

Lewen v. Smith, 7 Port. (Ala.) 428.

19. In government surveys, the line actually run by the government surveyors is the true line.

Goodman v. Myrick, 5 Oregon, 65.

20. In a case where the township lines had been run and marked by the United States survey, but the field

notes of the subdivision lines were fraudulent and rejected by the surveyor-general, because incorrect, no proper survey of them having been made, it was held that the line between sections one and two must be ascertained by running a straight line from the corner of the sections established on the exterior line of the township to the corresponding corner on the opposite side of the township.

Hamil v. Carr, 21 Ohio St. 258.

21. Where the initial point in the description of premises in a deed is the southeast corner of the north half of the southeast quarter, fractional, of a section, and the quarter-section is made fractional by a meandered lake so situated as to cover the eastern and central portions thereof; and the parcel described was carved out of the north half within a year after the same was patented, the southeast corner in question is construed to be the point which constituted the southeast corner of the land as it was surveyed out and platted by the government, which located it on the meandered line of the lake. The fact that the waters of the lake have since receded cannot change the boundaries as previously located.

Verplanck v. Hall, 27 Mich. 79.

237. Decisions of the General Land Office with reference to Mineral Surveys.-Plats and field notes: Of surveys of mining claims, required to disclose all conflicts with prior surveys, giving areas of all conflicts.

In future, surveyor-general will use no coloring on plats.

Com'r. (N.) Nov. 16, 1882. Circular.

Location (of mine): Must be marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced.

N. Noonday M'g Co v. Orient M'g Co., 6 Saw., C. C., 299; Myers et al. v. Spooner et al., 55 Cal. R., 257; Gleason v. N. White M'g Co., 13 Nev. R., 443; Southern Cross G. and S. M'g Co. v. Europa M'g Co., 15 id., 383.

Surface line: Agreement by adjoining claimants, fixing surface boundary line between them, must be construed as