Questions and Answers

	SURVEY RELATED COURT CASES:

	Page _1_ _2_ _3_ _4_ _5_ _6_		Index

	C:

	Clark v. Aukerman, 654 N.E. 2D 1183 (iND.aPP. 1995), Subject: Easements,

	Clark v. Boyrean, 14 Cal. 612, 630, Subject: Deeds, Title,

	C lark v. Campau, 19 Mich. 325, Subject:

	Clearwater Farms LLC, v. Giles, 2016 UT App 126 Subject: Road width, Water rights, Use history, County improvement requirements, Piping ditches,

	Clement v. Packer, 125 U.S. 309, 8 Sup. Ct. 907, 31 L.Ed. 721, Subject: Original corners control, Hearsay rules with respect to deceased surveyors, Hearsay rules and boundaries, Evidence of surveys, Actual lines surveyed over written returns, Simultaneous conveyances, Surveys of small tracts as a block, Junior surveys do not control senior surveys,

	Clement v. Northumberland Coal Co., 87 Pa. 291, 1878 WL. 13356 (Pa.), Subjet: Junior surveys do not control over senior surveys,

	Clement v. Watson, 63 Fla. 109, 58 South.Rep. 25, Subject:

	Coal v. Clement, 95 Pa. St. 126, Subject: Conditions when small tracts are surveyed as a block,

	Coburg Dairy Inc v. Lesser, 458 S.E. 2d 547 (S.C. 1995), Subject: Easements,

	Cocran v. Smith, 73 Hun. 597, Ibid, 26 N.Y.S. 103, Subject: Boundaries,

	Cogburn v. San Mateo County, 75 Fed.Rep. 520, 4 Am.St. Papers (Duff Green Ed.) 119, Subject:

	Coker and Scheiffer v. Hayes, 16 Fla. 368, Subject:

	Collins v. Barclay, 7 Pa.St. 73, Subject: conditions when small tracts area surveyed as a block,

	Columbia Canning Co v. Hampton, 161 Fed. Rep. 60, Subject:

	____________________________________________________________________________

	Page _1_ _2_ _3_ _4_ _5_ _6_		Index