What is a "corner" ?

Professional Surveyor March 2008 Volume 28 Number 3
Rules of the Game: What is a corner — Really?
Donald A. Wilson, LLS, PLS, RPF

My previous article began a discussion of Griffin's Rules based on his treatise, Retracement and Apportionment as Surveying Methods for Re-establishing Property Corner (Marquette Law Review, 43: 484-510). The article also centered around corners: lost verus obliterated, and the important court case Rivers v. Lozeau regarding property corners. The word "corner" should always be emphasized in the land surveyor's mind, since the corner is what retracement, and sometimes apportionment, is all about. So, exactly, what then is a corner?

Looking first at a definition, a corner has been defined by the court system as the intersection of two converging lines or surfaces; an angle, whether internal or external; the "corner" of a building, the four "corners" of a square, the "corner" of two streets. A mere variation in a line does not constitute a "corner" (Christian v. Gernt. et al., Tenn. Ch., 64 S.W. 399 [1900]).

The lay definition, according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, also sometimes relied on by the courts, has been stated as "the point or place where two converging lines, sides, or edges meet; angle. Also, a piece designed to form, occupy, mark, protect, or adorn a corner of anything."

"A boundary corner is the point of intersection of two boundary lines; a marker is a physical object either placed or adopted by someone to call attention to the corner."

Thus, many equate a marker to a corner, when often it is not. A boundary corner is the point of intersection of two boundary lines; a marker is a physical object either placed or adopted by someone to call attention to the corner. A marker may or may not occupy the position of the corner. In fact, some markers have no relationship to any corners, but occasionally they are accepted as evidence based on an assumption that they do mark the corner(s). Horseshoe pins, mailbox posts, and burial markers for pets all fall into this category. In addition, an accessory may have been placed nearby a corner not intending to be at the location of the corner but to be a witness to a corner and indicate where the corner is located. Other property corners also act as witnesses to a corner in addition to true "witness corners." Some things that are just that, corners, which may or may not be property corners. Some examples are building corners, street corners, and fence corners.

As stated in 12 Am Jur 2d Boundaries, § 61, "On a resurvey to establish lost boundaries, if the original corners can be found, the places where they were originally established are conclusive without regard to whether they were in fact correctly located, in this respect it has been stated that the rule is based on the premise that the stability of boundary lines is more important than minor inaccuracies or mistakes. But it has also been said that great caution must be used in reference to resurveys, since surveys made by different surveyors seldom wholly agree. A resurvey not shown to have been based upon the original survey is inconclusive in determining boundaries and will ordinarily yield to a resurvey based upon known monuments and boundaries of the original survey."

The Ohio court recognized this point in the case of Sanders v. Webb (85 Ohio App.3d 674, 621 N.E.2d 420 [1993]) wherein it was stated, "the law provides that the original corners established during the progress of the survey shall forever remain fixed in position, and that even evident errors in the execution of the survey must be disregarded where these errors were undetected prior to the sale of the lands. The original monuments thus assume extreme importance in the location of land boundaries. Unfortunately, most of the public lands were surveyed before the present day regulations relative to the character of monuments went into effect, and as a consequence most of the monuments used were of a very perishable nature. Their disappearance or destruction has rendered the relocation of old lines a very difficult task."

Several courts have not only emphasized the philosophy, or directive, but have made it clear that anything other than locating an existing line placed by a surveyor (whether marked or not) is outside of the surveyor's responsibility when surveying (locating) a boundary. In fact, the court stated in Pereles v. Gross (126 Wis. 217 [1905]) that anything other than locating the original, existing, line may be unlawful: "In resurveying a tract of land according to a former plat or survey, the surveyor's only function or right is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the corners and lines at the same places where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground. Any departure from such purpose and effort is unprofessional, and, so far as any effect is claimed for it, unlawful."

Now that many of the original markers have disappeared, the courts are interested in where they were and where they were set when the points were established. The Utah court so stated in Home Owners' Loan Corporation v. Dudley et al. (141 P.2d 160 [1943]): "The original location of a monument controls, and, if it is obliterated, the court is concerned in ascertaining where it was originally located."

And in the case of what is known as a nonexistent corner, the Colorado court stated, "A corner which has never existed cannot be said to be lost or obliterated and established under the rules relating to the establishment of lost or obliterated corners, but should be established at the place where the original surveyor should have put it" (Lugon v. Crosier, 240 P. 462, 78 Colo. 141 [1925]). The court elaborated by saying that "if the monument were lost or obliterated there would be some reason to attempt to re-locate it." However, "when it is a myth, never on the ground, the natural, straight-forward and sensible way is to establish the corner at the place where the original surveyor ought to have put it."

As previously noted, the words "corner" and "marker" are frequently used interchangeably, when they should not be. A marker merely calls attention to the corner; it may or may not be at the same location as the corner itself. Finding a marker is but half the answer; it then remains to be proven what relationship it has to the corner, if any. Granted, markers set by the original surveyor may be corners, but also may not be, depending on what and where they are.

The BLM Manual addresses this point:
"The terms "corner" and "monument" are often used largely in the same sense, though a distinction should be noted to clarify the difference. The term corner denotes a point determined by the survey process, whereas a monument is the physical structure erected for the purpose of marking the corner point upon the earth's surface" (Bureau of Land Management Manual of Instructions, 1947, § 349).

Additionally, a corner may also be a mathematically determinable point, such as where markers were never set, although title lines and corners have been established and recognized. This was an issue for the Washington court in 1931: The center of a section is not a physical government monument, but it is a point capable of mathematical ascertainment, "thus constituting it, in a legal sense, a monument call of the description" (Matthews v. Parker, 299 P. 354, 163 Wash. 10).

Corners and monuments are not the same, although under the right conditions, they both may be at the same point. Surveyors have to decide when they are, and when they aren't.

About the Author
Don Wilson is president of Land & Boundary Consultants, Inc.; and part owner of and the lead instructor in Surveyors Educational Seminars, a member of the Professional Surveyor/RedVector Dream Team providing online courses for continuing education; and a regular instructor in the University of New Hampshire Continuing Education System for 25 years. He is also co-author of several well-known texts.