Smoot Sand Gravel Corporation v. Washington Airport
Citation | 75 L.Ed. 1109,51 S.Ct. 474,283 U.S. 348 |
Decision Date | 04 May 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 678,678 |
Parties | SMOOT SAND & GRAVEL CORPORATION v. WASHINGTON AIRPORT, Inc |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
The Attorney General and Mr. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Louis Titus, of Washington, D. C., for repond ent.
This suit was brought by the respondent for an injunction against alleged trespasses on land between high and low water mark on the Virginia side of the Potomac River opposite the District of Columbia. It was brought originally in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia, and on the petition of the defendant the Smoot Sand and Gravel Company was removed to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia. That Court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, but the decree was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 44 F.(2d) 342. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court, 283 U. S. 812, 51 S. Ct. 346, 75 L. Ed. —.
The Circuit Court of Appeals states that the sole question presented is whether the boundary line between Virginia and the District of Columbia is at high or at low water mark on the Virginia side of the Potomac, and that is the only question argued here. In view of the previous decisions and intimations of this Court is, does not need extended discussion now.
It must be assumed, notwithstanding some suggestion of ancient controversies, that the title of Maryland was that conveyed to Lord Baltimore by the charter of Charles I. and ran to and along the farther bank of the Potomac River. Marine Railway & Coal Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 47, 63, 42 S. Ct. 32, 66 L. Ed. 124. This means that the boundary was the usual high water mark, Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U. S. 606, 626, et seq., 43 S. Ct. 221, 67 L. Ed. 428; so that the only question is whether anything has happened since to change the original line. At the present stage of this old discussion the most important inquiry is raised by the supposed contradiction between the language of this Court in settling the decree in Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U. S. 577, 30 S. Ct. 630, 54 L. Ed. 888, and that in the later case of Marine Railway & Coal Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 47, 42 S. Ct. 32, 66 L. Ed. 124. With regard to that it is to be noticed that Mr. Justice Day who wrote the earlier decision took part also in the later and seems to have agreed with it. There was no adequate reason why he should not have agreed. Maryland v. West Virginia was a suit to settle a portion of the boundary line between those States. The decision could not affect the District of Columbia. It relied primarily upon an arbitration upon the issue in 1877, in which it was admitted that the original boundary was high water mark on the Virginia side, but held that the low water mark was established by prescription. The arbitration also relied upon a Compact of 1785, 1 Dorsey, Maryland Laws, 1692-1839, p. 187; 12 Hening, Virginia Statutes, p. 50, giving it a construction to which we cannot agree. Prescription was a sufficient reason for the decision, and could not be invoked against the District. The Compact is seen in a different light in Marine Railway & Coal Co. v. United States. As stated in 257 U. S. 64, 42 S. Ct. 32, 66 L. Ed. 124, Article 7 gave the citizens of each State full property in the shores of the River adjoining their lands and the privilege of carrying out wharves etc., but left the question of boundary open to long continued disputes. The rights of private citizens established by Article 7 were further cared for by Article 12 giving citizens of each...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Air Crash Disaster at Washington, DC
...to Lord Baltimore; to "the farther bank of the said Potomac river and following it." Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Washington Airport, Inc., 283 U.S. 348, 350-51, 51 S.Ct. 474, 475, 75 L.Ed. 1109 (1931); Marine Railway & Coal Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 47, 63, 42 S.Ct. 32, 33-34, 66 L.Ed......
-
Bostick v. Smoot Sand and Gravel Corporation
...30 S.Ct. 630, 54 L.Ed. 888; Washington Airport v. Smoot Sand Co., 4 Cir., 1930, 44 F.2d 342, reversed on other grounds, 1931, 283 U.S. 348, 51 S.Ct. 474, 75 L.Ed. 1109; 9 Ann.Code of Va. (1950 Ed.) Sec. 62-2; Miller v. Commonwealth, 1932, 159 Va. 924, 166 S.E. 557; Barnes v. State of Maryla......
-
U.S. v. Robertson Terminal Warehouse, Inc.
...These decisions do not apply to the Potomac River within the District of Columbia. See Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Washington Airport, 283 U.S. 348, 350-51, 51 S.Ct. 474, 75 L.Ed. 1109 (1931); Evans v. United States, 31 App. D.C. 544, 1908 WL 27829, at *5 14. Many of the statutes and compa......
-
Sharp v. Learned
... ... appellee ... Smoot ... Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Washington Airport, ... 450-453), Miami ... Corporation v. State, 173 So. 315, 186 La. 784, ... ...
-
Oil and Water Do Not Mix: An Argument for the United States Supreme Court's Deferral to Congress in Exxon v. Baker
...77, 95 (1981); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336, 348 (1931). 41 Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 451 U.S. at 95 (quoting New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. at 348). 42 Id. at 95 n.34. 43 Field, supra note 38, at 962. 44 Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 455 (1994). 45 Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 451......