Arkansas v. Tennessee
Supreme Court of the United States
IN EQUITY. This is an original suit in equity brought by the State of Arkansas against the State of Tennessee for the purpose of determining the location of the boundary line between those States along that portion of the bed of the Mississippi River that was left dry as the result of an avulsion which occurred March 7, 1876, when a new channel was formed known as the "Centennial Cut-off.” . The cause, having been put at issue by . the filing of answer and replication, was…
Read the full summary
IN EQUITY. This is an original suit in equity brought by the State of Arkansas against the State of Tennessee for the purpose of determining the location of the boundary line between those States along that portion of the bed of the Mississippi River that was left dry as the result of an avulsion which occurred March 7, 1876, when a new channel was formed known as the "Centennial Cut-off.” . The cause, having been put at issue by . the filing of answer and replication, was brought on to hearing upon stipulated facts, pursuant to ah intimation made by this court in Cissna v. Tennessee, 242 U.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Pitney
Concerning the proper location of an interstate boundary line with reference to the shores and channel of a navigable river separating one State of the Union from another, much has been written. The subject was brought under the consideration of this court in Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U. S. 1. In that case, Illinois contended that the boundary followed the middle of the channel of commerce, that is, the channel commonly used by steamboats and other craft navigating the river; while on the part of Iowa it was insisted that the line ran in the middle of the main body of the river, taking the middle…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Hardin v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Barney v. KeokukSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Nebraska v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by119 opinions
- TEXAS v. FLORIDA Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Nashville, C. & St. LR Co. v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co. v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Oregon Ex Rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Wilson v. Omaha Indian TribeSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
114 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.