Home/Supreme Court/United States v. Texas

United States v. Texas

162 U.S. 1, 16 S. Ct. 725, 40 L. Ed. 867, 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2195
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 16, 1896
Docket3, Original
StatusPublished
Cited by67 cases

This text of 162 U.S. 1 (United States v. Texas) 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
United States v. Texas, 162 U.S. 1, 16 S. Ct. 725, 40 L. Ed. 867, 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2195 (1896).

Opinion

Me. Justice Haelak

delivered the opinion of the court.

By the act of Congress of May 2, 1890, c. 182, establishing a temporary government for the Territory of Oklahoma, arid enlarging the jurisdiction of the United States court in the Indian Territory, it was declared that that act should not apply to “ Greer County ” until the title to the same had been adjudicated and determined to be in the United States. And that there might be a speedy judicial determination of that question the Attorney General of' the United States was directed to institute in this court á suit in equity against the State of Texas, setting forth the title and claim of the United States “to the tract of land lying between the North and South Forks of the Bed Biver where the Indian Territory and the State of Texas adjoin, east of the one hundredth degree of longitude, and claimed by the State of Texas as within its boundary and a part of its land, and designated on *21 its map as Greer County; ” the court, on the trial of the ease, in its discretion, and so far as the ends of justice would warrant, to consider any evidence taken and received by the Joint Boundary Commission under the act of Congress, approved January 31, 1885. 26 Stat. 81, 92, § 25.

In order that the precise locality of this land may be indicated, and for convenience, we insert on page 22 an extract from a map of Texas and of the Indian Territory, published in 1892. The territory in dispute is marked on that map with the words “Unassigned Land.” It contains about 1,511,576.17 acres, lies east of the 100th meridian of longitude and west and south of the river marked on that map as the North Fork of Bed Biver and with the words “ Boundary claimed by the State of Texas.” It is north of the line marked on that map with the words “Boundary claimed by U. S.” The river on the south side is now commonly known as Prairie Dog Town Fork of Bed Biver, (the Indian name of which is Kecheahquehono,) which has its source in the western part of Texas, and is the same river as the South Fork of Bed BiVer mentioned in the act of 1890.

The present suit was instituted pursuant to that act. • The State appeared, and demurred to the bill upon the following grounds :■ 1. The question of boundary raised by the suit was political in its character, and not susceptible of judicial determination by this court in the exercise of any jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 2.. Under the Constitution it was not competent for the United States to sue, in its own courts, one of the States composing the Union. 3. This court, sitting as a court of equity, could not hear and determine the present controversy — the right asserted by the United States being in its nature legal and not equitable.

Upon full consideration these several grounds of demurrer were overruled. United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621. The reasons given for that conclusion need not be here repeated.

The State answered the bill, controverting the claim of the United States and. asserting that the lands within the boundary mentioned in the above act constitute a part of its terri-

*22

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

Related

Vectrus Services A/S v. United States
Federal Claims, 2023
Venable's Construction, Inc. v. ONEOK Arbuckle II Pipeline, LLC
N.D. Texas, 2020
Graphic Packaging Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
State v. Norman
40 P.3d 1161 (Washington Supreme Court, 2002)
Jones v. P.A.W.N. Enterprises
988 S.W.2d 812 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Snap-On Tools, Inc. v. United States
26 Cl. Ct. 1045 (Court of Claims, 1992)
Tsosie v. United States
11 Cl. Ct. 62 (Court of Claims, 1986)
Coplin v. United States
6 Cl. Ct. 115 (Court of Claims, 1984)
United States v. West Virginia
537 F. Supp. 388 (S.D. West Virginia, 1982)
James v. Langford
558 F. Supp. 737 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1981)
City of Columbus v. Union Cemetery Ass'n
341 N.E.2d 298 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1976)
Edward J. Simons v. Jerry Vinson and A. P. Clark
394 F.2d 732 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)
State v. Lain
339 S.W.2d 272 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
United States v. Louisiana
363 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1960)
United States v. Texas
339 U.S. 707 (Supreme Court, 1950)
United States v. California
332 U.S. 19 (Supreme Court, 1947)
Pueblo de Puerto Rico v. Lugo Irizarry
64 P.R. Dec. 554 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1945)
Helvering v. Stuart
317 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court, 1942)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1941
Paine & Williams Co. v. Baldwin Rubber Co.
113 F.2d 840 (Sixth Circuit, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 U.S. 1, 16 S. Ct. 725, 40 L. Ed. 867, 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-texas-scotus-1896.