State of Missouri v. State of Iowa

51 U.S. 1, 13 L. Ed. 303, 10 How. 1, 1850 U.S. LEXIS 1695
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 18, 1851
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 51 U.S. 1 (State of Missouri v. State of Iowa) 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 Missouri v. State of Iowa, 51 U.S. 1, 13 L. Ed. 303, 10 How. 1, 1850 U.S. LEXIS 1695 (1851).

Opinion

The commissioners appointed by this court to run and mark the boundary line between said States, according to our decree of the December term, 1848, having performed' that duty, and reported to -the court at this term the manner in which said work had been performed: and it appearing that two surveyors , had been employed by said commissioners to aid them in doing the work in the field; and that other assistants had been employed, and that various expenses had been incurred in running and marking said finé: now, in order that the parties to said .controversy may be informed of the amount of means necessary to be provided to pay for said services, and also for other costs and charges,' incidept to the suit, it is ordered that the clerk of this court do examine witnesses, and resort to other evidence; for the purpose of ascertaining what •is the proper compensation to be allowed to said commissioners and the surveyors they employed; and also what compensation is due to the Hon. Robert W. Wells for such services as he may have performed as commissioner before he resigned. And said clerk will also ascertain the amount of expenses, of every description, incurred by said commissioners, beside the' compensation to themselves and said surveyors, together with the costs and charges incurred in this court in carrying on the *2 controversy here. All of which he will include in a detailed, account, and report the same to this court at an early day, for its final action thereon.

12 December, 1850.

And in taking said account, the report of said commissioners will be taken ás prima facie true.

Said clerk will also ascertain and report the amount of moneys already advanced to said commissioners by the States of Missouri and Iowa respectively; and the manner, in which said moneys have been expended.

And now, on this third day of January, A. D. 1851, this cause came on for further order and decree therein, when it appeared to the court that at the December term, 1848, thereof, Henry B.. Hendershott and Joseph C. Brown were appointed commissioners to run and márk the line in controversy between the States of Missouri and Iowa; and the said Brown having died, the Hon. Robert W. Wells was appointed in room and stead of said Brown by the Chief Justice of .this court,, in vacation. And said Wells having resigned his appointment, William G. Minor was appointed commissioner in room and stead of said Wells, by this court, at its last December'term of 1849; and at which term the time for running and marking said fine was extended to this present term of December, 1850, for the reasons stated in. the report of said Wells and Hendershott, made to the last term; and which is hereinafter embodied. And the present commissioners, Henry B. Hendershott and William G. Minor, have made their report in the premises to this term; and which report is as follows: —

To the Honorable the Supreme Court op- the United States. .

The undersigned, appointed commissioners by this honorable court, in the above cases, to establish the boundary fine between the aforesaid States, respectively report, that, for the purpose of arranging the operations in the field so as to combine economy with speed, we met in the city of St. Louis, in March last, and there, after consulting experienced' surveyors, as to the time that might be consumed in running the fine, the probable amount of expense to be incurred, the necessary force to be employed, and the proper outfit, we determined a plan of operations, and agreed to meet at the supposed site of Sullivan’s “northwest corner,?’ between the 1st and 20th of April last. While in St. Louis, we obtainediiom Major M. L. Clark, Surveyor-General of the States of Missouri and Illinois, a copy of the field notes of the survey made by John C. *3 Sullivan, in the year 1816, of a line beginning on the east •bank of the Missouri River, opposite the middle of the mouth of the Kansas River, and extending north one hundred miles, where he made a corner, and also of. the line run by him in an easterly course to the Des Moines River. We were also furnished by Major Clark with several charts, diagrams, and copies of surveys which had at various' times been made of portions of Sullivan’s line, and which were of much service in the prosecution of the work.

The surveyors severally appointed by us were William Dewey, Esq., of Iowa, and Robert .Walker, Esq., of Missouri. Both these gentlemen had been connected with the public works of their respective States, and enjoy a high professional reputation.

According to our agreement, we left our respective homes on the 10th of April lafet, and soon after reaching the point of meeting, in view of increased prices of transportation, provisions, &c., caused by the immense emigration through. Southern Iowa and Northern Missouri to California, we altered our plan of work and reduced our force.

No precise trace of the “old northwest corner” remained, — the witness-trees to it were on the margin of a vast prairie, and had apparently been destroyed by fire years ago. Consequently its exact position could not be ascertained. Yet from the running of many experimental lines, diligently examining the evidences before us, together with the reports of the surveyors, we became satisfied of its proper position, and accordingly established it.

Its latitude taken resulted as follows: —

400 34/ 40"" N.

At the corner so determined we planted a large, solid cast-iron pillar, weighing between fifteen anc ixteen hundred pounds, four feet six inches long, squaring twelve inches at its base and eight inches at its top. This pillar was deeply and legibly marked with the words (strongly cast into thé iron) “ Missouri ” on its south side, “ Iowa ” on its north side, and “ State Line ” on the east.

From the monument so plaiited-at the “northwest corner.”, aforesaid, in the said látitude, the survey of the line was commenced, running due west on said parallel of latitude to the Missouri River, as directed by this honorable court, and at its terminus, as near the bank of said Missouri River as the perishable nature of the soil would admit, we planted a monument similar in figure, weight, dimension, and inscription to the one planted at the •“ northwest corner,” the words “ State Line ” facing the east.

*4 Unexpected delays, arising from a condition of»the weather which prevented the surveyors from making reliable astronomical observations, together with the fact, that, to a great extent, in the vicinity of said line there were no roads, and the settlements distant and sparse, compelling us to open a track for the transportation of the monuments and baggage of the corps, and also to construct necessary bridges and grade fords, greatly retarded the work.

Returning to the “ northwest corner,” the survey of the' line was commenced, extending eastwardly from said “ corner ” to the Des Moines River, as run and marked by said Sullivan, in 1816, from said corner to said river. On this line; by close examination, we discovered abundant blazes and many witness-trees, which enabled us to find and re-mark the said line, as directed by this honorable court.

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

Related

Beese v. Valley
D. Idaho, 2024
(HC) Brown v. Pfeiffer
E.D. California, 2020
Scott Schmidt v. Deborah McCullough
823 F.3d 1135 (Seventh Circuit, 2016)
John Michael Bane v. State of Tennessee
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2011
United States v. Knox
Fifth Circuit, 1996
Wellington v. District of Columbia
851 F. Supp. 1 (District of Columbia, 1994)
North Dakota v. Minnesota
263 U.S. 583 (Supreme Court, 1924)
Virginia v. West Virginia
246 U.S. 565 (Supreme Court, 1918)
Mills v. United States
8 Ct. Cust. 31 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1917)
M. H. Pulaski Co. v. United States
6 Ct. Cust. 291 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1915)
Batten & Co. v. United States
5 Ct. Cust. 447 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1914)
United States v. Schwartz
3 Ct. Cust. 24 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1912)
D. M. Steward Mfg. Co. v. Steward
109 Tenn. 288 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1902)
Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance
127 U.S. 265 (Supreme Court, 1888)
Mead v. Parker
36 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 62 (New York Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 U.S. 1, 13 L. Ed. 303, 10 How. 1, 1850 U.S. LEXIS 1695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-missouri-v-state-of-iowa-scotus-1851.