7.1 Existent, Obliterated & Lost Corners: Classification and Evidence
Key Takeaways
Under the BLM Manual, an existent corner is one whose position can be identified by verifying the original monument or its accessories against the field-note description.
An obliterated corner has no remaining traces of the monument or accessories, but its position can be recovered beyond reasonable doubt from acceptable evidence or testimony.
A lost corner is one whose position cannot be determined beyond reasonable doubt from original marks or acceptable evidence, and it is restored only by reference to interdependent corners.
Mississippi county surveyors must record their surveys, including witness trees and monuments, in books kept in the chancery clerk's office (§ 19-27-5).
Proportionate measurement is used only after a thorough search shows a corner is lost; restoring an obliterated corner by proportion is error.
Why classification comes first
The BLM Manual (1973 and 2009 editions, Chapter V on restoring lost or obliterated corners) divides corners into three classes. The class decides the method:
Is original monument or accessory evidence identifiable?
|
yes -+-> EXISTENT: hold it
|
no --+-> Can the position be recovered beyond reasonable doubt
from other acceptable evidence or testimony?
|
yes -+-> OBLITERATED: restore at the proven position
|
no --+-> LOST: restore by proportionate measurement
(single or double), last resort
Treating an obliterated corner as lost, and proportioning it, moves the corner away from its proven original position. That can change the boundaries of every tract that depends on it.
Existent corners
A corner is existent when its position can be identified by verifying the evidence of the original monument or its accessories against the description in the field notes. In Mississippi that usually means a bearing tree, its stump, or a healed blaze that fits the record, or a post mold at the recorded position (Section 6.3). The corner does not need a perfectly preserved post. It needs identifiable original evidence. An existent corner is held where found, even if it is far from its record distance (43 U.S.C. § 752).
Obliterated corners
A corner is obliterated when no traces of the monument or its accessories remain, but its location can be recovered beyond reasonable doubt from the acts and testimony of interested landowners, competent surveyors, other qualified local authorities, or witnesses, or from acceptable record evidence. An obliterated corner is restored at its proven position. It is not proportioned.
Collateral evidence in Mississippi
| Source | Why it can be strong | Cautions |
|---|---|---|
| County surveyor record books (§ 19-27-5), kept in the chancery clerk's office | By statute they record courses, distances, acreage, when, by whom, and for whom each survey was made, witness trees and monuments with bearings and distances, and magnetic variation. They often document replacing a decaying original post with an axle, pipe, or stone | Check that the recording surveyor actually found original evidence and did not simply compute a position |
| County resurvey certificates (§ 19-27-13) | Resurveys and re-markings "governed by the original surveys," which the owner may record | Same caution |
| Prior recorded surveys by licensed surveyors | May describe accessories found at the time and the marker set | Distinguish "found original, set pipe" from "set pipe at computed position" |
| Fences and lines of occupation of competent origin | A fence corner built while the original post or bearing trees still stood, and respected since, can preserve the position | Fences of convenience, or fences built from computed positions, carry little weight |
| Testimony of credible witnesses | Someone who saw the original post or bearing trees | Weigh age, basis of knowledge, and consistency; get it in writing |
Lost corners
A lost corner is one whose position cannot be determined beyond reasonable doubt, either from traces of the original marks or from acceptable evidence or testimony, and whose location can be restored only by reference to one or more interdependent corners. Only then does the surveyor use:
- single proportionate measurement for corners controlled along one line (Section 7.2); or
- double proportionate measurement for corners common to four townships or four sections, controlled in both directions (Section 7.3).
Some special cases, such as corners on lines closing against a treaty line or a private claim, are handled under the Manual's special rules.
How thorough must the search be?
The Manual expects a search proportional to the stakes, and Mississippi practice adds its own records. A defensible search typically includes:
- The GLO plat and notes, plus later county surveyor books and recorded plats.
- A field search around the computed position for post molds, bearing-tree remains, and line blazes.
- Retracing nearby lines from existent corners to test the record against the ground and find where the original line actually ran.
- Interviews with long-time owners, and examination of fences and old roads of apparent early origin.
- Documentation, on the plat and in the file, of what was found and what was searched for without success (Rule 7.3).
Reporting the classification
The plat should state how each PLSS corner used was classified and restored, for example: "SW corner Section 14, obliterated; restored at 2-inch iron axle recorded in County Surveyor Book 3, page 112 (1888) as set at the original post; axle found." That satisfies Rule 7.3's duty to disclose sources and discrepancies, and it lets later surveyors check the reasoning.
Worked classification exercise
A surveyor is retracing the east line of Section 22 and has four corners to classify:
| Corner | Evidence found | Classification | Restoration |
|---|---|---|---|
| NE corner Sec. 22 | Stump of a pine bearing tree at the recorded bearing and distance; post mold at the computed point | Existent | Hold the position fixed by the original accessory and the post mold |
| E 1/4 corner Sec. 22 | Nothing original; a recorded 1931 county survey says the surveyor "found the original post decayed, set a stone"; the stone is found | Obliterated | Hold the stone, whose origin is documented as the original position |
| SE corner Sec. 22 | Nothing original; a 1990s rebar with no record; the owners know nothing about it | Not yet classified | Keep searching; the unexplained rebar is not evidence of the original corner |
| SE corner, after an exhaustive search | No original, record, occupation, or testimonial evidence | Lost | Double proportion if it is a corner of four sections controlled in all four directions (Section 7.3) |
Two points come out of the exercise. First, one corner can move from "unknown" to "lost" only after the search is exhausted, and the plat should say what was searched. Second, classifying one corner affects others. Restoring a lost corner uses the existent and obliterated corners around it as controls (Sections 7.2–7.3). An error at one corner spreads to every corner restored from it.
The original post and bearing trees at a section corner are gone. An 1888 county surveyor record in the chancery clerk's office says the surveyor found the decaying original post and replaced it with a 2-inch iron axle. The surveyor digs and finds the axle at an old four-way fence corner. How should the corner be classified?
Lost, because no original material remains, so double proportion is required
Obliterated, because its original position is recovered beyond reasonable doubt from acceptable record and physical evidence
Existent, because any iron monument is equivalent to the original
Unclassifiable until a chancery court rules
What is the defining feature of a lost corner under the BLM Manual?
Its original wooden post has decayed
It is more than one chain from its record position
Its position cannot be determined beyond reasonable doubt from original marks or acceptable evidence, so it can be restored only by reference to interdependent corners
It lies in a county with no county surveyor
A surveyor could not find a quarter-section post and immediately set the corner by single proportion. The surveyor ignored a 1912 recorded survey stating that the original post was found and a stone set, and a stone at that spot. What is wrong with this approach?
Nothing, because proportion is always the preferred method
Double proportion should have been used for a quarter corner
The corner should have been set at the record distance from one section corner
The corner was restored by proportion without first evaluating collateral evidence that may prove its obliterated position
Sections you finish are checked off in the contents.