Is you want to feel good about being a professional land surveyor you would probably want to read “The Judicial Functions of Surveyors” which was a speech by Thomas M. Cooley, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan to the Michigan Society of Engineers in 1881 (That is correct 1881). The text can also be found in the appendix of “Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location” by Brown, Robillard and Wilson. This book is really a better study in responsibilities of a land surveyor. There are some good points in the Cooley talk that are worth going over. The Chief Justice is talking about boundary retracement in Michigan but for the most part it can be applied throughout the United States. It is interesting to note that when he is talking about the problems of finding original GLO monuments, those surveys were at the most only 50 years old at the time of the speech.

When a man has had a training in one of the exact sciences, where every problem within its purview is supposed to be susceptible of accurate solution, he is likely to be not a little impatient when he is told that, under some circumstances, he must recognize inaccuracies, and govern his action by facts which lead him away from the results which theoretically he ought to reach. Observation warrants us in saying that this remark may frequently be made of surveyors.

The above quote from the speech was his first line. It is clear from this he has dealt with surveyors more than he would have liked to. This is a failing that all surveyors at some time or another fall into, the desire to come up with a mathematical solution, which just feels right. It is our responsibility to find as much evidence and to weigh the evidence appropriately.

The general duty of a surveyor in such a case is plain enough. He is not to assume that a monument is lost until after he has thoroughly sifted the evidence and found himself unable to trace it. Even then he should hesitate long before doing anything to the disturbance of settled possessions. Occupation, especially if long continued, often affords very satisfactory evidence of the original boundary when no other is attainable; and the surveyor should inquire when it originated, how, and why the lines were then located as they were, and whether a claim of title has always accompanied the possession, and give all the facts due force as evidence. Unfortunately, it is known that surveyors sometimes, in supposed obedience to the State statute, disregard all evidences of occupation and claim of title and plunge whole neighborhoods into quarrels and litigation by assuming to “establish” corners at points with which the previous occupation cannot harmonize. It is often the case that, where one or more corners are found to be extinct, all parties concerned have acquiesced in lines which
were traced by the guidance of some other corner or landmark, which may or may not have been trustworthy; but to bring these lines into discredit, when the people concerned do not question them, not only breeds trouble in the neighborhood, but it must often subject the surveyor himself to annoyance and perhaps discredit, since in a legal controversy the law as well as common sense must declare that a supposed boundary line long acquiesced in is better evidence of where the real line should be than any survey made after the original monuments have disappeared.

The above is really talking about that judicial or quasi-judicial function of a surveyor, where they need to consider occupation as evidence of original location of a monument and corner. This is never an easy call for a land surveyor as it is hard to clearly explain why you feel that is the best evidence of the original location. Some surveyors will go to any fence corner and accept that as the location, when additional field research would find better evidence of the original location. This is why land surveying requires professional judgement.

From the foregoing, it will appear that the duty of the surveyor where boundaries are in dispute must be varied by the circumstances.

1. He is to search for original monuments, or for the places where they were originally located, and allow these to control if he finds them, unless he has reason to believe that agreements of the parties, express or implied, have rendered them unimportant. By monuments, in the case of government surveys, we mean, of course, the corner and quarter stakes. Blazed lines or marked trees
on the lines are not monuments they are merely guides or finger posts, if we may use the expression, to inform us with more or less accuracy where the monuments may be found.
2. If the original monuments are no longer discoverable, the question of location becomes one of evidence merely. It is merely idle for any State statute to direct a surveyor to locate or “establish” a corner, as the place of the original monument, according to some inflexible rule. The surveyor, on the other hand, must inquire into all the facts, giving due prominence to the acts of parties
concerned, and always keeping in mind, first, that neither his opinion nor his survey can be conclusive upon parties concerned, and, second, that courts and juries may be required to follow after the surveyor over the same ground, and, that it is exceedingly desirable that he govern his action by the same lights and the same rules that will theirs.

The above part is summarizing what the Chief Justice sees as the duties of a surveyor when looking for original monuments. You should note that he is suggesting that you should determine what the court would do and do the same. Much easier said than done.

I have thus indicated a few of the questions with which surveyors may now and then have occasion to deal, and to which they should bring good sense and sound judgment. Surveyors are not and cannot be judicial officers, but in a great many cases they act in a quasi-judicial capacity with the acquiescence of parties concerned; and it is important for them to know by what rules they are to be guided in the discharge of their judicial functions. What I have said cannot contribute much to their enlightenment, but I trust will not be wholly without value.

The above is the ending remarks by the Chief Justice again indicating that we as professional surveyors need to understand our role in boundary retracements. Again I would advise reading the whole article.

As  I mentioned at the beginning of this section, “Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location” is a good book discussing the role of a professional land surveyor. It is not one that is talking about how to make boundary determinations, that you will get from “Boundary Control and legal Principles” by Curtis Brown. This one is more about what you need to do when thinking about when have you searched enough.