Missouri v. Nebraska

197 U.S. 577, 25 S. Ct. 580, 49 L. Ed. 881, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 640
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 6, 1905
Docket5, Original
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 197 U.S. 577 (Missouri v. Nebraska) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Missouri v. Nebraska, 197 U.S. 577, 25 S. Ct. 580, 49 L. Ed. 881, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 640 (1905).

Opinion

"In the opinion of the court in the above-entitled cause, the. order and-finding of the court having been made as follows:

“ ‘It appears from the record that about the year 1898 the county surveyors of Nemaha County, Nebraska, and Atchison County, Missouri, made surveys of the abandoned bed of the Missouri River, ascertained the location of the original banks on either side, and to some extent marked the middle of the old channel. If the two States will agree upon these surveys *578 and locations as correctly marking the original banks of the river and the middle of the old channel, the court will, by decree, give effect to that agreement; or, if cither State desires a new survey, the court will order one to be made and will cause monuments to be placed so as to permanently mark the boundary lines between the two States. The disposition of the case by final decree is postponed for forty days,,in order that the court may be advised as to the wishes of the parties in respect to these details.’

“In pursuance whereof now come the parties hereto by their respective counsel and agree that the said surveys made by the county surveyors of Nemaha County, Nebraska, and Atchison County, Missouri, as reported by the Commissioners and set forth in the opinion of the court, constitute and be correct boundary lines between the said States, the same constituting the middle of the' old channel of Missouri River as found by said court in its opinion.

“It is further agreed between the parties hereto that the monuments marking said boundary line established by the said county surveyors of said counties are not of a permanent character, and many of them have become destroyed or removed, and that in order to mark a permanent boundary line it is necessary and is deemed best that permanent monuments • be erected at regular intervals on said line in such manner as will quiet all dispute in reference to said boundary.

“It is further agreed that said permanent monuments can be best established under the supervision of the Commissioners heretofore appointed by the court, to wit; Alfred Hazlett and John W. Halliburton, and it is therefore requested by the. parties to this cause that the court, by a proper order, direct and require said Commissioners to establish or cause to be established under their direction such permanent monuments as may by them be deemed necessary in the premises and in accordance with the order of the court heretofore made, and make a report to the court of their acts and doings therein. In the execution of their powers herein said Commissioners *579 shall .have authority to employ such surveyors and other assistants and procure such material as may be necessary in the establishment of the permanent monuments, marking said boundary line in accordance with the opinion of the court heretofore rendered and this agreement. .

“It is further agreed that said Commissioners for their services herein shall receive such compensation as may be agreed upon by the respective parties, and if the parties are unable to agree, then such as may be fixed by the court after the services have been performed and due report thereon made.

“On account of the unfavorable condition of the weather during the winter months and of the character of the ground during the spring months, the parties hereto respectfully request the court that said Commissioners be granted until the first day pf May, 1905, in which to make their report.

State of Missouri, Complainant, By Edward C. Crow,
Attorney General.
Sam B. Jeffries,
Assistant Attorney General.
State of Nebraska, Defendant, ByF. N. Prout,
Attorney General.”

And on motion of Herbert S. Hadley, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, counsel for said complainant, that a decree be entered in this cause in accordance with said opinion and stipulation:

It is now here ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court that the middle of the channel of the Missouri River, according to its course as it was prior to the avulsion of July 5, 1867, is and shall be the true boundary line between Missouri and Nebraska,- and that said boundary line is indicated upon and shown by the following plat:

*580 And that said boundary line is more particularly shown and described by the following eleven sectional survey maps, with the field notes descriptive of each of said sectional maps and surveys.:

Defendant’s Exhibit “ E.”

FIELD NOTES.

No. of Survey........ Date February 25th to March 29th 1895 Survey for Nemaha county Nebraska At request of the Board of County Commissioners Chainmen sworn W. T. Hacker and H. D. Hacker Point established divis. of Accretions to Sec. 35, Twp. 7 N, Rng. 15 E, 6th P. M.

Commencing at the meander corner, on the Nebraska bank of the Old Missouri River bed where the Township line between Townships 6 and 7 North of Range 15 East of the 6th Principal Meridian in Nebraska intersects with the Old Missouri River bed and at a point 9.10 chaines West of the South East corner of Section 35 and South Wbst corner of Section 36 in Township 7 North, of Range 15 East of the 6th Principal Meridian in Nebraska, and run thence N 47° W at 40.00 chaines set a random stake for half way and at 82.88 chaines came to a meander corner on the Missouri bank of the Old Missouri .river bed; This line run' in connection with D. A. Quick Surveyor of Atchison county Missouri. Correcting back we corrected the random stake set at 40.00 • chaines to 41.44 chaines for the half way or dividing line between Missouri and Nebraska and set a Limestone 7x12x25 inches square. Marked M. and N.. Whole distence' across 82.88 chaines. Half the distence across 41.44 chaines.

And Commencing at the quarter section corner on the West line of Section 36 and East line of Section 35 in Township 7 North, of Range 15 East of the 6th Principal Meridian in Nebraska, it being on the Nebraska bank of the Old Missouri

*581

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bolden v. Doe (In re Adoption of J.S.)
2014 UT 51 (Utah Supreme Court, 2014)
At & T CORP. v. Lucas County
381 F. Supp. 2d 714 (N.D. Ohio, 2005)
Ronson Art Metal Works Inc. v. Gibson Lighter Mfg. Co.
3 A.D.2d 227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
Welch v. Unknown Heirs
226 F.2d 776 (D.C. Circuit, 1955)
State v. Packer Corporation
297 P. 1013 (Utah Supreme Court, 1931)
North Dakota v. Minnesota
263 U.S. 583 (Supreme Court, 1924)
Cordova v. Grant
248 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Virginia v. West Virginia
246 U.S. 565 (Supreme Court, 1918)
Muratti v. Foote
25 P.R. Dec. 568 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1917)
Lovell v. Newman & Son
227 U.S. 412 (Supreme Court, 1913)
Soria v. Harrison County
50 So. 443 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1909)
Thornton v. City of Natchez
212 U.S. 559 (Supreme Court, 1908)
Warder v. Cotton
207 U.S. 582 (Supreme Court, 1907)
In re Youngstrom
153 F. 98 (Eighth Circuit, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 U.S. 577, 25 S. Ct. 580, 49 L. Ed. 881, 1904 U.S. LEXIS 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-v-nebraska-scotus-1905.