Hill City Compress Co. v. West Kentucky Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1929
• Docket Number: 27845
• Citation: 155 Miss. 55,122 So. 747
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HILL CITY COMPRESS CO. v. WEST KENTUCKY COAL CO. et al

122 So. 747

155 Miss. 55

HILL CITY COMPRESS CO. v. WEST KENTUCKY COAL CO. et al

No. 27845

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 3, 1929

Division B

1. APPEAL AND ERROR. States. Boundary line between the states of Mississippi and Louisiana is thread of stream and not point equidistant between banks; thread of stream in case of sudden avulsion by which river changes bed remains line between states; chancellor's finding of fact with reference to thread of stream on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.

The boundary line between the state of Mississippi and the state of Louisiana is the thread of the stream, or thalweg, and not the point equidistant between the banks of the stream, and the property of the lands bordering on the river extends only to the thread or thalweg of the stream; and, where there is a sudden avulsion by which the river changes its bed the thalweg at the time of the avulsion remains the boundary line, and where there is a conflict of the evidence as to where this thread of the stream, or thalweg, was, the chancellor's finding of fact with reference thereto will not be disturbed by the court on appeal.

2 COURTS. United States supreme court has authority to define law and rules governing disputes as to boundaries between states; state courts must follow decisions of United States supreme court relative to boundary disputes between states.

In disputes as to boundaries between the states of the Union the United States supreme court has authority to define the law and rules governing such questions, and it is the duty of the state courts to follow the decisions of the United States supreme court in such questions.

Suggestion of Error Overruled June 28, 1929.

APPEAL from chancery court of Warren county.

HON. J. L. WILLIAMS, Chancellor.

Suit by the Hill City Compress Company against the West Kentucky Coal Company and others. Judgment of dismissal, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Green, Green & Potter, of Jackson, Hirsh, Dent & Landau and T. G. Birchett, all of Vicksburg, for appellant.

Avulsion does not alter boundaries, which remain fixed in the middle of the channel of navigation as it existed just previous to the avulsion.

Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U.S. 172, 62 L.Ed. 646; Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U.S. 1, 37 L.Ed. 55; Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 49, 50 L.Ed. 913, 930, 26 S.Ct. 571; Washington v. Oregon, 211 U.S. 127, 194, 53 L.Ed. 118, 120, 39 S.Ct. 47, 214 U.S. 205, 215, 53 L.Ed. 969, 970, 29 S.Ct. 631; Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 361, 36 L.Ed. 188.

Where a stream, which is a boundary, from any cause suddenly abandons its old and seeks a new bed, such change of channel works no change of boundary; the boundary remains as it was, in the center of the old channel, although no water may be flowing therein.

Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 361, 36 L.Ed. 188; Gould on Waters, sec. 159; 2 Blackstone, Com, 262; Angell, Water Courses, sec. 60; Trustees of Hopkins Academy v. Dickinson, 9 Cush. 544; Buttenuth v. St. Louis Bridge Co., 133 Ill. 535, 14 West Rep. 551; Hagen v. Campbell, 8 Port. (Ala.) 9; Murry v. Sermon, 8 N.C. 56; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 34, 38 L.Ed. 344; Missouri v. Nebraska, 196 U.S. 35, 49 L.Ed. 375; New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662; State v. Pulp Co., 119 Tenn. 56; Dunlieth & Dubuque Bridge Co. v. County, 55 Iowa 557, 8 N.W. 443.

If the land be not shown to be in Mississippi, then the presumption as to location controls--that the boundary is equidistant between the fixed banks of the river.

Illinois v. Iowa, 147 U.S. 8, 37 L.Ed. 57; Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U.S. 177, 62 L.Ed. 649; State v. Keane, 84 Mo.App. 130,; Creasey's First Platform on International Law, sec. 231; Miles v. Perry, I La. Ann. 372.

Henry, Canizaro & Henry and Brunini & Hirsch, all of Vicksburg, for appellees.

Where the states of the Union are separated by boundary lines described as "a line drawn along the middle of the river," or as "the middle of the main channel of the river, " the boundary must be fixed at the middle of the main navigable channel, and not along the line equidistant between the banks.

Arkansas v. Mississippi, 250 U.S. 39, 63 L.Ed. 832; Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U.S. 1, 37 L.Ed. 55, 13 S.Ct. 239; Arkansas v. Tennessee, 247 U.S. 461, 62 L.Ed. 1213; Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 49, 50 L.Ed. 913, 26 S.Ct. 408, 571; Washington v. Oregon, 211 U.S. 127, 134, 53 L.Ed. 118, 119, 29 S.Ct. 47, 214 U.S. 20,5, 215, 53 L.Ed. 969, 970, 29 S.Ct. 631; State v. Muncie Pulp Co. (1907), 119 Tenn. 47, 104 S.W. 437; Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 50 L.Ed. 913; Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U.S. 1, 37 L.Ed. 55, 13 S.Ct. 239.

OPINION

Ethridge, P. J.

The Hill City Compress Company, claiming to be the owner of the west bank of the canal where the appellee, the West Kentucky Coal Company, had barges moored and tied to the west bank of the said canal in front of the city of Vicksburg, sued out an attachment in chancery against the West Kentucky Coal Company for rent for the tying up of said barges to the said west bank of the canal. The Royal Route was garnished in that proceeding, and answered admitting an indebtedness. The answer of appellees, the defendants below, denied the ownership of the Hill City Compress Company, contending that the land was not in Mississippi, but was in Louisiana, and that Mrs. Anna B. Long, afterwards made a party defendant, had been in adverse possession of the said land for more than the ten years required by statute to confer title in such cases. Mrs. Long had leased the right to the coal company to tie its barges to the west bank of the canal where the barges were located.

In 1876 the Mississippi river, by avulsion, changed its channel, and the boundaries of the Mississippi river as they existed prior to the said avulsion became a fixed boundary line between the states of Louisiana and Mississippi. The appellants claim title to the center of the river as ii existed in 1876 prior to the avulsion. It is the contention of the appellant that the center of the river, within the meaning of the law defining boundaries of the state, is the center of the stream between banks and not the center according to the thread or thalweg of the stream. The chancellor found as a fact that the thalweg of the Mississippi river as it existed at the time of the avulsion lay east of the land where the barges were tied up, and that the land involved was in the state of Louisiana, and belonged to the defendants in the suit, and dismissed the bill.

There was ample evidence to show that the thalweg of the stream lay east of the land (over which the barges floated, and to which the barges were tied), at the time of the avulsion of 1876. There was a conflict as to this, perhaps, but we think there was ample evidence to show that the deep channel of the river, as it existed in 1876, and prior thereto, lay east of the point where the barges were tied, and consequently the chancellor had facts upon which to base his decision. There was also a contention by the defendants that, regardless of where the land lay with reference to the said boundaries, they and their predecessors had been in open, adverse, and hostile possession of the land for more than the statutory period, and there is a conflict of evidence with reference to this proposition. The ownership of the complainant on the east bank of the old Mississippi river, now the Yazoo Canal, originally extended to the thalweg of the river; in other words, tho plaintiff's land extended to the center or thread of the stream, or whatever point was the boundary, between the state of Louisiana and the state of Mississippi at the time of the avulsion of 1876. It is argued by the appellant that the decisions of this court have established tho proposition that the center of the stream in such cases is the line middleway between the banks of the stream. We think the decisions of the United States supreme court is final authority upon this proposition, that court having original jurisdiction to settle disputed boundaries between the states, and whatever rule the state may have adopted is not final authority upon the question of boundaries, but would be subject to the control of the decisions of the United States supreme court upon such questions. That court has had occasion to deal with the subject in number of cases, and in the case of Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U.S. 1, 13 S.Ct. 239, 37 L.Ed. 55, fully considered and elaborately discussed the question, and reached the Conclusion that the true boundary is the middle of the main channel of navigation of the Mississippi river, where that river constitutes the boundary line. In that case, after discussing the law of nations and quoting from authorities, the court, at page 243 of 13 S.Ct. (147 U.S. 10) said:

"The reason and necessity of the rule of international law as to the mid-channel being the true boundary line of a navigable river separating independent states may not be as cogent in this...