State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas
| Decision Date | 17 March 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 6,6 |
| Citation | 74 L.Ed. 731,50 S.Ct. 247,281 U.S. 694,281 U.S. 109 |
| Parties | The STATE OF OKLAHOMA, complainant, v. The STATE OF TEXAS, defendant, the United States of America, intervener. , original |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On consideration of the report dated July 15, 1929, of Samuel S. Gannett, commissioner, heretofore designated to run, locate, and mark the boundary between the State of Oklahoma and the State of Texas along the true one hundredth meridian of longitude west from Greenwich as determined by the decree of January 3, 1927 (273 U. S. 93, 47 S. Ct. 307, 71 L. Ed. 555), modified by the decree of March 5, 1928 (276 U. S. 596, 48 S. Ct. 205, 297, 72 L. Ed. 723), showing that he has run, located, and marked such boundary;
And no objection or exception to such report being presented, and the time therefor having expired;
It is now adjudged, ordered, and decreed as follows:
1. The said report is in all things confirmed.
2. The boundary line delineated and set forth in said report and on the accompanying maps is established and declared to be the true boundary between the States of Texas and Oklahoma along said meridian.
3. The clerk of this Court shall transmit to the chief magistrates of the States of Texas and Oklahoma and the Secretary of the Interior, copies of this decree, duly authenticated under the seal of this Court, together with copies of said report and of the accompanying maps.
4. As it appears that the said commissioner has completed his work conformably to said decrees, he is hereby discharged.
5. The clerk of this Court shall distribute and deliver to the chief magistrates of the States of Texas and Oklahoma and the Secretary of the Interior all copies of the said report made by the commissioner, with the accom- panying maps, now in the clerk's hands, save that he shall retain 20 copies of each for purposes of certification and other needs that may arise in his office. Decree announced by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Karen v. Town of East Haddam
... ... State v. Hurliman, 143 Conn. 502, 506, 123 A.2d 767; Cyphers v. Allyn, 142 Conn ... ...
- City of Omaha v. Glissmann
-
Reynolds v. Soffer
... ... Although it does not appear in the record, the defendants state in their brief that the zoning enforcement officer refused to act upon the ... ...
-
Holmes v. Republic Steel Corp.
...in the case of Church v. Harnit, 35 F.2d 499, 500, decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals 6th Circuit, certiorari denied 281 U.S. 732, 50 S.Ct. 247, 74 L.Ed. 1148, the 6th paragraph of the syllabus being as follows: ‘6. President of corporation held entitled to retain bonus payment, even t......