Nicoulin v. O'Brien

Supreme Court

Nicoulin v. O'Brien

248 U.S. 113, 39 S. Ct. 23, 63 L. Ed. 155, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1697

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 9, 1918

Docket113

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 248 U.S. 113 (Nicoulin v. O'Brien) 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

Nicoulin v. O'Brien, 248 U.S. 113, 39 S. Ct. 23, 63 L. Ed. 155, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1697 (1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum opinion by

Me. Justice McReynolds.

Plaintiff in error was adjudged guilty of violating the prohibition of a Kentucky statute by seining for fish in the Ohio River south of low-water mark on the Indiana side. 172 Kentucky, 473. We are asked to hold that by reason of the Virginia Compact (13 Hening’s Statutes at Large, c. 14, pp. 17, 19), Kentucky had no power to regulate fishing in the river at that point without Indiana’s concurrence. The provision relied upon is this: “Seventh, that the use and navigation of the river Ohio, so far as the territory of the.proposed state, or the territory which shall remain within the limits of- this Commonwealth lies thereon, shall be free and common to the citizens of the United States, and the respective jurisdictions of this Commonwealth and of J;he proposed state on the river as aforesaid,'shall be concurrent only'with the states which may possess the opposite shores of the said river.”

The territorial limits of Kentucky extend across the river to low-water mark on the northerly shore. Indiana y) Kentucky,. 136 U. S. 479, 519. And We think it clear no limitátion upon the.power of that Commonwealth to protect fish within her own boundaries by proper, legislation resulted from the mere establishment of concurrent jurisdiction by the Virginia Compact. See Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573; Central R. R. Co. v. Jersey City, 209 U. S. 473;Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315; McGowan v. Columbia River Packers’ Assn., 245 U. S. 352.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

Memorandum opinion by

Me. Justice McReynolds.

Plaintiff in error was adjudged guilty of violating the prohibition of a Kentucky statute by seining for fish in the Ohio River south of low-water mark on the Indiana side. 172 Kentucky, 473. We are asked to hold that by reason of the Virginia Compact (13 Hening’s Statutes at Large, c. 14, pp. 17, 19), Kentucky had no power to regulate fishing in the river at that point without Indiana’s concurrence. The provision relied upon is this: “Seventh, that the use and navigation of the river Ohio, so far as the territory of the.proposed state, or the territory which shall remain within the limits of- this Commonwealth lies thereon, shall be free and common to the citizens of the United States, and the respective jurisdictions of this Commonwealth and of J;he proposed state on the river as aforesaid,'shall be concurrent only'with the states which may possess the opposite shores of the said river.”

The territorial limits of Kentucky extend across the river to low-water mark on the northerly shore. Indiana y) Kentucky,. 136 U. S. 479, 519. And We think it clear no limitátion upon the.power of that Commonwealth to protect fish within her own boundaries by proper, legislation resulted from the mere establishment of concurrent jurisdiction by the Virginia Compact. See Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573; Central R. R. Co. v. Jersey City, 209 U. S. 473;Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315; McGowan v. Columbia River Packers’ Assn., 245 U. S. 352.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 U.S. 113, 39 S. Ct. 23, 63 L. Ed. 155, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 1697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicoulin-v-obrien-scotus-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack