State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas United States
| Decision Date | 12 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 18,O,18 |
| Citation | 261 U.S. 340,43 S.Ct. 376 |
| Parties | STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. STATE OF TEXAS (UNITED STATES, Intervener). riginal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for State of Oklahoma.
Messrs. C. W. Taylor, of Corsicana, Tex., Orville Bullington and A. H. Carrigan, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., C. M. Cureton, of Austin, Tex., W. A. Keeling, of Mexia, Tex., R. H. Ward, of Houston, Tex., and T. W. Gregory, of Washington, D. C., for State of Texas.
This cause having been heard and submitted upon certain questions, and the court having considered the same and announced its conclusions in an opinion delivered January 15, 1923, 260 U. S. 606, 43 Sup. Ct. 221, 67 L. Ed. ——.
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed:
1. The boundary between the states of Oklahoma and Texas, where it follows the course of the Red river from the one hundredth meridian of west longitude to the eastern boundary of the state of Oklahoma, is part of the international boundary established by the treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain, and is on and along the south bank of that river as the same existed in 1821, when the treaty became effective, save as hereinafter stated.
2. Where intervening changes in that bank have occurred through the natural and gradual processes know as erosion and accretion the boundary has followed the change; but where the stream has left its former channel and made for itself a new one through adjacent upland by the process known as avulsion the boundary has not followed the change, but has remained on and along what was the south bank before the change occurred.
3. Where, since 1821, the river has cut a secondary or additional channel through adjacent upland on the south side in such a way that land theretofore on that side has become an island, the boundary is along that part of the south bank as theretofore existing which by the change became the northerly bank of the island, and where by accretion or erosion there have been subsequent changes in that bank the boundary has changed with them.
4. The rules stated in the last two paragraphs will be equally applicable to such changes as may occur in the future.
5. The south bank of the river is the water-washed and relatively permanent elevation or acclivity, commonly called a cut bank, along the southerly side of the river which separates its bed from the adjacent upland, whether valley or hill, and usually serves to confine the waters within the bed and to preserve the course of the river.
6. The boundary between the two states is on and along that bank at the mean level attained by the waters of the river when they reach and wash the bank without overflowing it.
7. At exceptional places where there is no well defined cut bank, but only a gradual incline from the sand bed of the river to the upland, the boundary is a line over such incline conforming to the mean level of the waters when at other places in that vicinity they reach and wash the cut bank without overflowing it.
8. The area known as the Big Bend, which lies within a northerly bend of the river between a southerly extension of the east line of range thirteen west in Oklahoma and a southerly extension of the west line of range fourteen west in that state, has been since before 1821 fast upland on the southerly side of the river, is within the state of Texas and never was owned by the United States. The northerly border of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. State of California
... ... United States v. State of Texas, 143 U.S. 621, 646, 648, 12 S.Ct. 488, 494, 495, 36 L.Ed. 285; United States v. State of Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 194, 46 S.Ct. 298, 301, 70 L.Ed ... 907, 79 L.Ed. 1659; Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10, 21—27, 56 S.Ct. 23, 28—31, 80 L.Ed. 9; State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 256 U.S. 70, 41 S.Ct. 420, 6 5 L.Ed. 831, Id., 256 U.S. 602, 41 S.Ct. 539, 65 L.Ed. 1115. And there is no reason why, after ... ...
-
Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88
... ... L. R. B. v. United Biscuit Co., 8 Cir., 208 F.2d 52, 55, certiorari ... Pipeline Const. Co. v. State Bd. of Equal., 49 Cal.2d 729, 735-736, 321 P.2d ... But, as the United States Supreme Court observed of a similar argument, 'we ... In State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas (1920), 252 U.S. 372, 40 S.Ct ... ...
-
Brainard v. State, 98-0578
...methodology, as defined by the United States Supreme Court in a series of cases entitled Oklahoma v. Texas. 260 U.S. 606 (1923); 261 U.S. 340 (1923); 265 U.S. 500 (1924). Our Court has adopted this approach for determining the line between public and private ownership along the banks of a n......
-
Diversion Lake Club v. Heath
...line between Texas and Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 260 U. S. 606, 43 S. Ct. 221, 67 L. Ed. 428; Id., 261 U. S. 340, 43 S. Ct. 376, 67 L. Ed. 687. The Supreme Court of the United States, in its decree defining the boundary line between the two states and appointing commiss......
-
PL 116-9, S 47 – John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act
...the measurement technique used to locate the South Bank boundary line in accordance with the methodology established in Oklahoma v. Texas, 261 U.S. 340 (1923) (recognizing that the boundary line along the Red River is subject to change due to erosion and (3) Landowner.--The term ``landowner......