New Hampshire v. Maine

Citation434 U.S. 1,98 S.Ct. 42,54 L.Ed.2d 1
Decision Date03 October 1977
Docket NumberNo. 64,64
PartiesNEW HAMPSHIRE v. MAINE
CourtUnited States Supreme Court
DECREE

The joint motion for entry of a final decree is granted.

IT IS Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as Follows:

1. The Report of the Special Master is hereby approved, and the motion for entry of judgment by consent of plaintiff and defendant is granted.

2. This judgment determines the lateral marine boundary line between New hampshire and Maine from the inner Portsmouth Harbor to the breakwater at the end of the inner Gosport Harbor in the Isles of Shoals.

3. The Order of the King in Council of April 9, 1740, in pertinent part, provided:

"And as to the Northern Boundary between the said Provinces, the Court Resolve and Determine, That the Dividing Line shall pass up thro the Mouth of Piscataqua Harbour and up the Middle of the River into the River of Newichwannock (part of which is now called Salmon Falls) and thro the Middle of the same to the furthest Head thereof and from thence North two Degrees Westerly until One Hundred and Twenty Miles be finished from the Mouth of Piscataqua Harbour aforesaid or until it meets with His Majestys other Governments And That the Dividing Line shall part the Isles of Shoals and run thro the Middle of the Harbour between the Islands to the Sea on the Southerly Side; and that the Southwesterly part of the said Islands shall lye in and be accounted part of the Province of New Hampshire And that the North Easterly part thereof shall lye in, and be accounted part of the Province of the Massachusets Bay and be held and enjoyed by the said provinces respectively in the same manner as they now do and have heretofore held and enjoyed the same . . . ."

4. The terms "Middle of the River" and "Middle of the Harbour," as used in the above-quoted Order, mean the middle of the main channel of navigation of the Piscataqua River and the middle of the main channel of navigation of Gosport Harbor.

5. The middle of the main channel of navigation of the Piscataqua River, commencing in the vicinity of Fort Point, New Hampshire, and Fishing Island, Maine, proceeding southward, is as indicated by the range lights located in the vicinity of Pepperrell Cove, Kittery Point, Maine, and it follows the range line as marked on the Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart 211, 8th Edition, Dec. 1, 1973.

6. The main channel of navigation of the Piscataqua River terminates at a point whose position is latitude 43x02'42.5" North and longitude 70x42'06" West. Said point has a computed bearing of 194x44'47.47" true and a computed distance of 1,554.45 metres (1,700 yards) from the Whaleback Lighthouse, No. 19, USCG-158, whose position is latitude 43x03'31.213" North and longitude 70x41'48.515" West (reference National Geodetic Survey).

7. The middle of the main channel of navigation of Gosport Harbor passes through a point indicated by the bottom of the BW "IS" Bell Buoy symbol as shown on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Citizens to Save Spencer County v. U.S. E.P.A.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 17 Julio 1979
    ......Paper Institute, et al., Hoosier Energy Division, Mountain . Fuel Supply Company, Montana Power Co., et al., Natural . Resources Council of Maine, Pittston Co., Intervenors. . ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., Appellant, . v. . Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator, U. S. Environmental . Protection ......
  • Move Organization v. US Dept. of Justice, Civ. A. No. 82-143.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 10 Enero 1983
  • Ohio v. Kentucky, 27
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 21 Enero 1980
    ...461, 96 S.Ct. 3187, 49 L.Ed.2d 625 (1976); New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U.S. 363, 96 S.Ct. 2113, 48 L.Ed.2d 701 (1976), and 434 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 42, 54 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977). The dissent's concern about the possibility, surely extremely remote, that the comparatively stable Ohio River might "pass......
  • Canino v. Londres, Civ. A. No. 94-370-JD
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of New Hampshire
    • 31 Agosto 1994
    ...river, see Granite State Minerals, Inc. v. American Ins. Co., 435 F.Supp. 159, 160 (D.Mass.1977); see also New Hampshire v. Maine, 434 U.S. 1, 2, 98 S.Ct. 42, 43, 54 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977); see generally 14 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT