State of Kansas v. United States of America
| Decision Date | 25 February 1907 |
| Docket Number | No. 11,O,11 |
| Citation | 27 S.Ct. 388,204 U.S. 331,51 L.Ed. 510 |
| Parties | STATE OF KANSAS, Complainant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Defts. riginal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Joseph H. Choate, Chiles C. Coleman, James Hagerman, Adrian H. Joline, A. B. Browne, Joseph M. Bryson, and John Madden in opposition.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 331-333 intentionally omitted] Solicitor General Hoyt, Attorney General Moody, and Assistant Attorney General Russell in support of motion to dismiss.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 334-336 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:
On April 30, 1906, the state of Kansas applied for leave to file a bill of complaint against the United States and others, to which the United States objected on the ground of want of jurisdiction. May 21 leave was granted, without prejudice, and the bill was accordingly filed. As such an application by a state is usually granted as of course, we thought it wiser to allow the bill to be filed, but reserving to the United States the right to object to the jurisdiction thereafter, and hence the words, 'without prejudice,' were inserted in the order. October 9 leave was granted to the United States to file a demurrer, and, in lieu of this, a motion to dismiss was substituted, which was submitted November 12 on printed briefs on both sides.
The bill was filed by the attorney general of Kansas, on behalf of the state, as trustee for the Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Company, of certain lands in the Indian territory, alleged to have been granted to the state for the benefit of the railway company.
It is stated by counsel for complainant, as appearing from the bill, that in 1866
On July 25, 1866, an act of Congress was passed entitled 'An Act Granting Lands to the State of Kansas to Aid in the Construction of the Kansas & Neosho Valley Railroad and Its Extension to Red River.' 14 Stat. at L. 236, chap. 241. On the next day, July 26, an act was passed, using the same language, except as to the routes, entitled 'An Act Granting Lands to the State of Kansas to Aid in the Construction of a Southern Branch of the Union Pacific Railway and Telegraph, from Fort Riley, Kansas, to Fort Smith, Arkansas' (14 Stat. at L. 289, chap. 270), which provided as follows:
'That for the purpose of aiding the Union Pacific Railroad Company, Southern Branch, the same being a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Kansas, to construct and operate a railroad from Fort Riley, Kansas, or near said military reservation, thence down the valley of the Neosho river to the southern line of the state of Kansas, with a view to an extension of the same through a portion of the Indian territory to Fort Smith, Arkansas, there is hereby granted to the state of Kansas, for the use and benefit of said railroad company, every alternate section of land or parts thereof designated by odd numbers to the extent of five alternate sections per mile on each side of said road, and not exceeding in all ten sections per mile 'Sec. 3. . . . And the lands hereby granted shall inure to the benefit of said company, as follows: When the governor of the state of Kansas shall certify that any section of ten consecutive miles of said road is completed in a good, substantial, and workmanlike manner as a first-class railroad, then the said Secretary of the Interior shall issue to the said company patents for so many sections of the land herein granted within the limits above named, and coterminous with said completed section hereinbefore granted; . . .
The bill averred that the road was constructed through the Indian territory, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartman v. Switzer, Civ. A. No. 73-788.
...States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 25 L.Ed. 194; United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed. 171; Kansas v. United States, 204 U.S. 331, 27 S.Ct. 388, 51 L.Ed. 510; Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 387, 59 S. Ct. 292, 294, 83 L.Ed. 235; Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction......
-
National City Bank of New York v. Republic of China
...at page 577, 1 Pet.C.C. at pages 289—290. 1. United States v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436, 444, 8 L.Ed. 1001; State of Kansas v. United States, 204 U.S. 331, 341, 27 S.Ct. 388, 390, 51 L.Ed. 510; Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Com. Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 703, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 1468, 93 L.Ed. 2. Kawananakoa......
-
Williams v. United States
...and added: 'Indeed, the whole jurisdiction of the court of claims rests upon this proposition.' See, also, Kansas v. United States, 04 U.S. 331, 342, 27 S.Ct. 388, 51 L.Ed. 510; United States v. Louisiana, 123 U.S. 32, 35, 8 S.Ct. 17, 31 L.Ed. 69. None of these cases involved the question n......
-
Nash County Bd. of Educ. v. Biltmore Co.
...genre. See, for example, Oklahoma v. A. T. & Santa Fe Ry., 220 U.S. 277, 31 S.Ct. 434, 55 L.Ed. 465 (1911); Kansas v. United States, 204 U.S. 331, 27 S.Ct. 388, 51 L.Ed. 510 (1907); Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 20 S.Ct. 251, 44 L.Ed. 347 (1900); N. H. v. Louisiana: N. Y. v. Louisiana, 10......
-
Federal sovereign immunity versus state environmental fines.
...(6 Wheat.) 264 (1821). (26) United States v. McLemore, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 286 (1846). (27) Id. at 286. (28) See Kansas v. United States, 204 U.S. 331 (1907) ("It does not follow that because a State may be sued by the United States without its consent, therefore the United States may be sued ......
-
Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas and sovereign immunity: federal facility nonpoint sources, the APA, and the meaning of "in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity."
...(citing California v. Arizona, 440 U.S. 59, 61-62 (1979)); Minnesota v. United States 305 U.S. 382, 387 (1939); Kansas v. United States, 204 U.S. 331, 342 (1907)); Presidential Gardens Assocs. v. United States, 175 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206......