State of Maryland v. State of West Virginia

225 U.S. 1, 32 S. Ct. 672, 56 L. Ed. 955, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2067
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 27, 1912
Docket1, Original
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 225 U.S. 1 (State of Maryland v. State of West Virginia) 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
State of Maryland v. State of West Virginia, 225 U.S. 1, 32 S. Ct. 672, 56 L. Ed. 955, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2067 (1912).

Opinion

To the Honorable Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

We, Julius. K. Monroe and Samuel S. Gannett, two of the Commissioners appointed under the decree of the Court rendered May 31, 1910, “to run, locate, and establish and permanently mark with suitable monuments the said Deakins or ‘Old State Line' as the boundary line between the States of Maryland and West Virginia from said point (low water mark) on t(he southern bank of the North Branch of the Potomac River to the said Pennsylvania line, etc./’, have the honor to submit the following report, and map entitled, “Map Showing The Boundary Line Between Maryland and West Virginia, from the Potomac River to the Pennsylvania State Line, as surveyed and marked under the decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, rendered May 31,. 1910,” etc.:

The party was organized and went into camp on July 12, 1910, on Arnold’s Ridge, about one mile north of the North Branch of the Potomac River, and immediately began the survey of the line. . .

Beginning at the Fairfax Stone, a line was first run North 0° 56' E. along a well marked line to a planted stone T» marked u-qqj >> the southwest corner of Military Lot, No. 1101, originally a “bounded maple standing one mile, north from a stone fixed by Lord Fairfax for the head of the North Branch of the Potowmack River.” The intersection of this line with the south bank of the North Branch of the Potomac (at low water mark) was, under the decree of the Court, fixed as the corner of Maryland and West Virginia, and monument No. 1 was therefore erected at this place and became the initial-point dfjthe boundary line run in 1910 and 1911.

From' the corner of lot 1101 B, where monument No., 2 .was erected, the line deflects slightly to the wvest and follows the old marked line on the course N. 0° 47' 53” E. as *3 identified by the surveyors in the case in 1897 and shown on the maps filed by the defendants. This line crosses Arnold’s Ridge, Laurel Run, Backbone Mountain, Yough-iogheny River, and where it intersects the 3rd line of a Maryland tract called “Covent Garden” monument No. 4 was erected and an offset was made to the west. The 3rd line of Covent Garden was followed for a distance of 402.15 feet on the course N. 71° 48' W. (true) to a planted stone, acknowledged by residents and owners of adjoining property and pointed out by them as being, the limit of their respective claims, at this point. Monument No. 5 was built over this stone and the line was run N. 0° 27' 04” E. in a manner to follow the property lines, as acknowledged by the citizens of the two states; passing over the center of a planted. stone property corner, which marked the beginning of the Maryland tract called Mount Pleasant, surveyed in 1774. Monument No. & was built over and around this stone, which was pointed out by witnesses as marking the place of the original corner, a white oak tree. Continuing on the same course, a large anciently marked white oak tree was reached and identified as the beginning of a Virginia tract of land surveyed for John Pettyjohn in ,1781, and also a corner of John T. Goff 1000 acres, survey made in 1782, both of which call for the boundary line. This tree was cut and blocks taken out by your Commissioners which showed surveyors’ axe marks in the wood; one 130 years old, one 117 years, and the last 78 years, thus indisputably establishing this course as following the oldest marked line extant. The stump of this tree was removed and monument No. 8 was built in the exact spot occupied by it. Upon trial it was found that from this white oak, northward, the line between property holdings of citizens in the two states, verged to the eastward, and a slight angle was therefore made to the east and the boundary line run N. 0° 42' 57” E. to the stump of a bounded sugar tree, the northwest corner of a Maryland tract called Eelshine; this tree, while standing, was identified by the surveyors in this case in 1897, and also by the owners of the tract. The land, since that time has been cleared, and the timber destroyed by fire. The stump of this sugar tree was again pointed out to the Commissioners, in 1910, by Peter F. Nine, the *4 present owner of the tract Eelshine. This -stump was removed and monument No. 10 erected exactly where it stood.

From this point the boundary line runs S. 89° 17' 03" E. 482.3 feet along the line common to the tract Eelshine and the Virginia Grant to Wm. Ashby for 50 acres, to the southwest corner of the Maryland tract called Buckdale. As the southwest corner of Buckdale and the southeast corner of the Ashby 50 acre tract, which are common, could not be. definitely located upon the ground, as all original objects marking them have been destroyed, this point was determined by the intersection of a line produced southward passing through known and accepted points in the “Old Line,” namely: “the stake and stone pile,” oh Lauer Hill, which is the common corner of the Maryland tract called “Maryland,” and the Virginia grant to John Hoye for 500 acres, and which was identified and located by the surveyors in this case in 1897, and shown at Red “ C-6 ” upon Map No. 1, filed by defendants, and again identified by your Commissioners in 1910; and a point north of the B. & O. Railroad near Hutton, Maryland, in the property line between lands of the-Connell tleirs and George Morris. Monument No. 11 was placed at the intersection of the line above described with the line eastward from Monument No. 10. The course of the boundary from monument No. 11, as above determined, is N. 0° 41' 02" E. following closely the lines of the original Virginia grants, and passing through, or very near the several points indicated upon map No. 1 filed in this case by defendant, and testified to as standing in the “Deakins, or Old State Line,” to a-point on Glover’s Hill, l}/2 miles, north of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, where Monument No, 15 was erected. From this point northward it was found that the general course of the property lines verged slightly to the west, and the course of the boundary was here changed to N. 0° 22' 27" E to conform thereto, following the well marked divisional lines between the F. & W. Deakins 6000 acre Virginia grant, and the Maryland Military Lots (Nos. 1237 to 1245) and the-eastern line of the Hoye and Martin 3600 acre Virginia grant, passing over the summits of Snaggy Mountain and through the southern end of the Pine Swamp to a point where thus *5 line intersects the southern line of the John Crane 776 acre Virginia grant, a short distance north of the Cranes-ville and Oakland road, as indicated upon the maps filed by the defendant in this case. This point was determined by reproducing upon the ground the southern line of said 776 acre Crane Survey. Monument No. 19 was erected at this point.

From Monument No. 19 an offset of 971.09 feet was made along the south line of the John Crane 776 acre tract N. 89° 27' 27" E to its intersection with the west boundary of Maryland Military Lot No. 1292, where Monument No. 20 was built. The boundary here turns northward, following the west limit of Military Lots 1292, 1294, 1296, 1298, 1400, & 1402 as laid out by Francis Deakins, on a true course of N. 0° 17' 00" E. to the northwest corner of Military Lot 1402. Monument No. 21 was placed at this point and an offset made 53.69 feet S. 89° 43' 00" E, along the north side of Lot 1402, (which is also the division line between lands of E. F. Jenkins and M. H.

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

Related

Burgess v. Brockhart
N.D. Illinois, 2022
Clifton v. Wilkinson
Supreme Court of Virginia, 2013
O'DELL v. Stegall
703 S.E.2d 561 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2010)
Fraijo v. Superior Court
34 Cal. App. 3d 222 (California Court of Appeal, 1973)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1940
Cogen v. United States
278 U.S. 221 (Supreme Court, 1929)
State v. Cecil
113 So. 254 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Fay v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
173 N.W. 69 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1919)
Virginia v. West Virginia
246 U.S. 565 (Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 U.S. 1, 32 S. Ct. 672, 56 L. Ed. 955, 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maryland-v-state-of-west-virginia-scotus-1912.