In situation B, Corners Nos. 1 and 2 can be recovered. Lines 4–1 and 2–3 should be shown at the record distance, regardless of the length of line 1–2. The bearings of lines 4–1 and 2–3 may be the record bearing or at the same variation from the record as line 1–2. If this was a rectangular claim, then the bearing of the missing lines probably should be at right angles to line 1–2, unless this would give a distorted relationship between the claim and the workings on it, particularly the discovery. Line 3–4 should be shown parallel and of equal length to line 1–2.
In situation C, Corners Nos. 1 and 4 are recovered. Line 2–3 should be shown parallel and of equal length to line 4–1, if the record was such. Lines 1–2 and 3–4 should be shown at the record distance, and at the record bearing or with the same variance found for line 4–1.
In situation D two corners are again recovered, but they are opposite corners, Nos. 1 and 3. Missing Corner Nos. 2 and 4 can be restored by using the Grant Boundary method. See Section 5–44 of the Manual of Surveying Instructions. They can also be shown at the record bearing and distance from Cors. Nos. 1 and 3, using either the end lines or side lines, with the resulting missing lines being the bearing and distance required to close. The method selected should restore the lines in the best relative position to the workings.
In situation E, three corners, 1, 2 and 4, are recovered. Line 2–3 is shown parallel and of equal length to line 4–1. Line 3–4 is shown parallel and of equal length to Line 1–2.
FIG. 7
In restoring corners of irregular claims, such as metes and bounds placers, the broken boundary (non-riparian) or the Grant Boundary method should be used. It may also be applied to lode claims if the above methods do not give adequate results.
In reestablishing corners of a block of claims, the rules of proportionate measurement may be applied. In Figure 8, missing Corner No. 2 of claims E, F, G and H can be restored by double proportion. Missing Corner No. 1 of claims A and B may also be restored by double proportion; since there is no corner beyond this corner, the record distance from Corner No. 2 would have to be used in this direction. Corner No. 1 might also be established at the record bearing and distance from Corner No. 2, or lines 1–2 of claims A and B could be made parallel and of equal length to line 3–4 of claim A. Since missing Corner No. 3 of claims B and D is on an end line, single proportionate measurement might be considered. See the Manual of Surveying Instructions for proportionate methods, pp. 134–136.
6–2 Township Resurveys with Mineral Surveys: Prior to field work, all unpatented mineral surveys embracing claims that have been declared null and void should be cancelled, leaving only valid existing claims and patents to be segregated. Restoration of missing corners should only be made where they are necessary to control the boundaries between private and public land, including the boundaries between public land and unpatented valid mineral surveys. Segregation surveys of unsurveyed mining claims may be requested to accommodate administrative actions. If possible, the owners of the mining claims should be advised of the resurvey and given an opportunity to express their opinions as to the position of missing corners.
6–3 Mineral Segregation Surveys: Sections 7–39 to 7–44 inclusive, of the Manual of Surveying Instructions adequately covers this subject. Segregation surveys are not undertaken unless there is a need for them arising from administrative action involving the adjoining land. Very often it will be necessary to make the survey within the boundaries as they are marked on the ground due to inaccuracies in the location survey. The early township surveys in California often segregated unsurveyed mining claims showing them on the township plats without supporting field notes. Resurveys of such segregations may be required based on the evidence found in the field.