State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas United States, 27
| Citation | 40 S.Ct. 353,252 U.S. 372,64 L.Ed. 619 |
| Decision Date | 01 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 27,27 |
| Parties | STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEXAS (UNITED STATES, Intervener). riginal |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Order Granting Injunction and Appointing Receiver.
This cause coming on to be heard on the motion of the United States for leave to intervene herein for an injunction and for the appointment of a receiver, and on the responses made to such motion by the state of Oklahoma and the state of Texas, respectively, and the court being fully advised in the premises,
It is now considered, ordered, and decreed as follows, until the further order of the court:
1. That said motion for leace to intervene herein be, and the sm e is hereby, granted.
2. The defendant, the state of Texas, her officers and agents, are hereby enjoined from selling any purported rights or making or issuing any grants, licenses or permits to any person, corporation or association covering or affecting any lands, or any part of the bed of Red river, lying north of the line of the south bank of such river as said south bank existed at the date of the ratification of the treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain; that is to say, on the 22d day of February, 1821, and between the one hundredth degree of west longitude and the southeastern corner of the state of Oklahoma.
3. Jacob M. Dickinson, Esq., of Chicago, Ill is hereby appointed receiver of all the lands described in paragraph 2 of the said intervener's motion, to wit:
Bounded on the north by the mid-channel of the Red river, as the mid-channel is hereinafter defined; on the east by extension south of the west boundary line of range 10 west between township 4 south, range 10 west, and township 4 south, range 11 west, in Cotton county, Okl., crossing the remaining portion of said Red river and to the foot of the Texas bluffs as the south bank; thence up said river along the foot of the Texas bluffs as the south bank, through ranges 11, 12, 13, and through range 14 as follows: Commencing at a point on the east boundary line of range 14 extended which point is 116.50 chains from the original meander corner of fractional section 31, township 4 south, range 13 west and section 36, township 4 south, range 14 west; thence
N. 79x 00' W. 26.75 chs.
N. 71x 15' W. 33.00 chs.
N. 75x 15' W. 28.25 chs.
N. 85x 30' W. 22.60 chs.
N. 82x 00' W. 21.40 chs.
to a point on the present south bank of the Red river which is at the foot of the Texas bluff; thence along the line of the south bank and the foot of the Texas bluff
S. 71x15' W. 54.70 chs. to a point on the present south bank of Red river at the foot of the Texas bluff at the intersection of a direct south extension of the west boundary of range 14 west, between fractional section 7, township 5 south, range 14 west, and section 12, township 5 south, range 15, which point is 57.43 chains from the original meander corner of said fractional sections.
Thence continuing up said river along the foot of the Texas bluffs as the south bank, through ranges 15 and 16 to the intersection of the west boundary line of range 16 extended to the foot of the Texas bluffs.
Thence north along said boundary line of range 16 to mid-channel of said river as the same meanders through the broad stretch of sand which in some places extends to and is bounded by the bluffs on either side, and in other places by the margin of the alluvial flood plain on either side, and which is covered with water at times of freshets and entirely devoid of flowing water during the annual dry seasons—and of all machinery, fixtures, tools,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. United States
... ... Hyde, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Lee Williams, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the ... ...
-
Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88
...574(54), 45 P.2d 972; Rancho Santa Margarita v. Vail (1938), 11 Cal.2d 501, 560(25), 81 P.2d 533.)In State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas (1920), 252 U.S. 372, 40 S.Ct. 353, 64 L.Ed. 619; Id. (1921), 256 U.S. 602, 41 S.Ct. 539, 621, 65 L.Ed. 1115; Id. (1923), 261 U.S. 340, 43 S.Ct. 376, 67 L......
-
Rector v. United States
...it could have clothed its receiver with power to and have ordered him to prosecute such development himself. Oklahoma v. Texas, 252 U. S. 373, 374, 40 S. Ct. 353, 64 L. Ed. 619; Id., 253 U. S. 465 and 469, 40 S. Ct. 580, 64 L. Ed. 1015, 1017; Id., 256 U. S. 602, 41 S. Ct. 539, 65 L. Ed. 111......
-
United States v. State of West Virginia
...U.S. 621, 12 S.Ct. 488, 36 L.Ed. 285; United States v. Michigan, 190 U.S. 379, 396, 23 S.Ct. 742, 47 L.Ed. 1103; Oklahoma v. Texas, 252 U.S. 372, 40 S.Ct. 353, 64 L.Ed. 619; Id., 258 U.S. 574, 581, 42 S.Ct. 406, 66 L.Ed. 771; United States v. State of Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 195, 46 S.Ct. ......