State of Virginia v. State of Tennessee

Decision Date03 April 1893
Docket NumberNo. 3,3
Citation13 S.Ct. 728,37 L.Ed. 537,148 U.S. 503
PartiesSTATE OF VIRGINIA v. STATE OF TENNESSEE. Original
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

R. Taylor Scott, R. W. Ayers, and W. F. Rhea, for complainant.

G. W. Pickle, N. M. Taylor, Thos. Curtin, C. J. St. John A. L. Demoss, and A. S. Colyer, for defendant.

Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit to establish by judicial decree the true boundary line between the states of Virginia and Tennessee. It embraces a controversy of which this court has original jurisdiction, and in this respect the judicial department of our government is distinguished from the judicial department of any other country, drawing to itself by the ordinary modes of peaceful procedure the settlement of questions as to boundaries and consequent rights of soil and jurisdiction between states, possessed, for purposes of internal government, of the powers of independent communities, which otherwise might be the fruitful cause of prolonged and harassing conflicts.

The state of Virginia, as the complainant, summoning her sister state, Tennessee, to the bar of this court,—a jurisdiction to which the latter promptly yields,—sets forth in her bill the sources of her title to the territory embraced within her limits, and also of the title to the territory embraced by Tennessee.

The claim of Virginia is that by the charters of the English sovereigns, under which the colonies of Virginia and North Carolina were formed, the boundary line between them was intended and declared to be a line running due west from a point on the Atlantic ocean on the parellel of latitude 36 deg. and 30 min. N., and that the state of Tennessee, having been created out of the territory formerly constituting a part of North Carolina, the same boundary line continued between her and Virginia; and the contention of Virginia is that the boundary line claimed by Tennessee does not follow this parallel of latitude, but varies from it by running too far north, so as to unjustly include a strip of land about 113 miles in length, and varying from 2 to 8 miles in width, over which she asserts and unlawfully exercises sovereign jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the claim of Tennessee is that the boundary line, as declared in the English charters, between the colonies of Virginia and North Carolina, was run and established by commissioners appointed by Virginia and Tennessee after they became states of the Union, by Virginia in 1800, and by Tennessee in 1801, and that the line they established was subsequently approved in 1803 by the legislative action of both states, and has been recognized and acted upon as the true and real boundary between them ever since, until the commencement of this suit, a period of over 85 years; and the contention of Tennessee is that the line thus established and acted upon is not open to contestation as to its correctness at this day, but is to be held and adjudged to be the real and true boundary line between the states, even though some deviations from the line of the parallel of latitude 36 deg. and 30 min. N. may have been made by the commissioners in the measurement and demarcation of the line.

In order to clearly understand and appreciate the force and effect to be accorded to the respective claims and contentions of the parties, a brief history of preceding measures should be given, with reference to the charters and legislation under which they were taken.

On the 23d of May, 1609, James the First of England, by letters patent, reciting previous letters, gave to Robert, Earl of Salisbury, Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, and divers other persons associated with them, a charter which organized them into a corporation by the name of the 'Treasurer & Company of Adventurers & Planters of the City of London,' for the first colony of Virginia, and granted to them all those lands and territories lying 'in that part of America called 'Virginia,' from the point of land called 'Cape or Point Comfort,' along the seacoast to the northward 200 miles, and from the said point of Cape Comfort along the seacoast to the southward 200 miles, and all that space and circuit of land lying from the seacoast of the precinct aforesaid up into the land throughout, from sea to sea, west and northwest;' and 'also all the islands lying within 100 miles along the coast of both seas of the precinct aforesaid.'

On the 24th of March, 1663, Charles the Second of England granted to Edward, Earl of Clarendon, and others of his subjects, all that territory within his dominion of America 'extending from the north end of the island called 'Lucke Island,' which lieth in the Southern Virginia seas, and within six and thirty degrees of the northern latitude, and to the west as far as the South seas, and so southerly as far as the river Mathias, which bordereth upon the coast of Florida, and within one and thirty degrees of northern latitude, and so west in a direct line as far as the South seas aforesaid,' and gave them full authority to organize and govern the territory granted under the name of the 'Province of Carolina.'

On the 30th or May, 1665, Charles the Second granted to the above proprietors of Carolina a charter, confirming the previous grant, and enlarging the same so as to include the following described territory: All that province and territory within America 'extending north and eastward as far as the north end of Currituck river or inlet, upon a straight westerly line to Wyonoke creek, which lies within or about the degrees of thirty-six and thirty minutes northern latitude; and so west in a direct line as far as the South seas; and south and westward so far as the degrees of twenty-nine inclusive of northern latitude; and so west in a direct line as far as the South seas.'

The northern and southern settlements of Carolina were separated from each other by nearly 300 miles, and numerous Indians resided upon the intervening territory; and, though the whole province belonged to the same proprietors, the legislation of the settlements was by different assemblies, acting at times under different governors. Early in 1700 the northern part of the province was sometimes called the 'Colony of North Carolina,' although the province was not divided by the crown into North and South Carolina until 1732. Story, Const. § 137. Previously to this division the settlements on the borders of Virginia, and of what was called the 'Colony of North Carolina,' had largely increased, and disputes and altercations frequently occurred between the settlers, growing out of the unlocated boundary between the provinces. Virginians were charged with taking up lands, under titles of the crown, south of the proper limits of their province, and Carolinians were charged with taking up lands which belonged to the crown with warrants from the proprietors. The troubles arising from this source were the occasion of much disturbance to the communities, and various attempts were made by parties in authority in the two provinces to remove the cause of them. Previously to January, 1711, commissioners were appointed on the part of Virginia and North Carolina to run the boundary line between them, and proclamations were made forbidding surveys of the grounds until that line within the disputed limits should be marked. But these efforts for the settlement of the difficulties were unavailing.

In January, 1711, commissioners were again appointed, but failed, for want of the requisite means to accomplish their intended object.

In 1728 an attempt to settle the difficulties was renewed, but, as on previous occasions, it failed. The commissioners of the colonies met, but they could not agree at what place to fix the latitude 36 deg. 30 min. N., nor upon the place called 'Wyonoke,' and they broke up without doing anything. The governors of North Carolina and Virginia then entered into a convention upon the subject of the boundary between the two provinces, and transmitted it to England for approval. The king and council approved of it, and so did the lords and proprietors, and returned it to the governors to be executed. The agreement was as follows:

'That from the mouth of Currituck river, setting the compass on the north shore thereof, a due west line shall be run and fairly marked; and, if it happen to cut Chowan river between the mouth of Nottaway river and Wiccacon creek, then the same direct course shall be continued towards the mountains, and be ever deemed the dividing line between Virginia and Carolina; but, if the said west line cuts Chowan river to the southward of Wiccacon creek, then from that point of intersection the bounds shall be allowed to continue up the middle of Chowan river to the middle of the entrance into said Wiccacon creek, and from thence a due west line shall divide the two governments. That, if said west line cuts Blackwater river to the northward of Nottaway river, then from the point of intersection the bounds shall be allowed to be continued down the middle of said Blackwater to the middle of the entrance into said Nottaway river, and from thence a due west line shall divide the two governments.

'That, if a due west line shall be found to pass through islands, or cut out small slips of land, which might much more conveniently be included in one province or other, by natural water bounds, in such case the persons appointed for running the line shall have the power to settle the natural bounds, provided the commissioners on both sides agree thereto, and that all variations from the west line be punctually noted on the premises or plats, which they shall return to be put upon the record of both governments.'

Commissioners were appointed by Virginia and North Carolina to carry this agreement into effect. They met at Currituck inlet in March, 1728. The variation of the compass was then found to be 3 deg. 1 min. and 2 sec. W. nearly, and the latitude 36 deg. 31 min. The dividing line between the provinces struck Blackwater 176 poles...

To continue reading

Request your trial
153 cases
  • Bimber's Delwood, Inc. v. James, 20-CV-1043S
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • October 21, 2020
    ...of the pestilence without obtaining the consent of congress, which might not be at the time in session. Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 518, 13 S. Ct. 728, 37 L. Ed. 537 (1893).Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a clear or substantial likelihood of proving "beyond all questi......
  • United States Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1978
    ...summary judgment for appellees. Held: 1. The Multistate Tax Compact is not invalid under the rule of Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519, 13 S.Ct. 728, 734, 37 L.Ed. 537, that the application of the Compact Clause is limited to agreements that are "directed to the formation of any comb......
  • Cuyler v. Adams
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1981
    ...Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452, 468, 98 S.Ct. 799, 810, 54 L.Ed.2d 682 (1978), quoting Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519, 13 S.Ct. 728, 734, 37 L.Ed. 537 (1893); New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U.S. 363, 369-370, 96 S.Ct. 2113, 2117, 48 L.Ed.2d 701 (1976). But where Congres......
  • New Jersey v. New York
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1998
    ...1392 (1933); Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 53, 26 S.Ct. 408, 422-423, 50 L.Ed. 913 (1906); Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 522-524, 13 S.Ct. 728, 735-736, 37 L.Ed. 537 (1893). "For the security of rights, whether of states or individuals, long possession under a claim of title ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • EcoZone Blog: Climate Change Outline: Emissions Trading Sub-National Challenges
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 13, 2012
    ...as the source of these indicia, is Ne Bancorp, Inc v Bd of Governors of the Fed Reserve Sys, 472 US 159 (1985). 26 Virginia v Tennessee, 148 US 503, 520 (1893); see also US Steel Corp v Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 US 452 27 US Steel Corp (n 78 above) 479 n 33; see also 'The Compact Clause an......
  • Reading insurance policies: context is key
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • May 3, 2022
    ...statutes and contracts is noscitur a sociis, which translates to “it is known by the company it keeps.” In Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893), the United States Supreme Court explained that “the meaning of a term may be enlarged or restrained by reference to the object of the w......
  • Crossing The Line - Does The Georgia Plan To Redraw The Tennessee-Georgia Border Pass Legal Muster?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 12, 2008
    ...(1915); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 696 (1930); New Jersey v. City of New York, 284 U.S. 585 (1931). 25. See Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893). 26. See Georgia v. South Carolina ,, U.S. 376 at 389 (1990). 27. See New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767, 787-88 (1998). 28. See New ......
11 books & journal articles
  • Horizontal federalism in an age of criminal justice interconnectedness.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 154 No. 2, December 2005
    • December 1, 2005
    ...states were forbidden from entering into formal crime control agreements of a coordinated nature. Id. at 73 (citing Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 517-20 (1893), which prohibited interstate compacts that would affect the political balance of the federal system). For a discussion of th......
  • CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, OR, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSISTING THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 49 No. 3, June 2019
    • June 22, 2019
    ...(128) U.S. CONST, art. I, [section] 10, cl. 3 (emphasis added). (129) West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 27-28 (1951). (130) 148 U.S. 503 (131) Id. at 517. (132) Id. at 519. (133) Id. at 520. (134) Ne. Bancorp, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 472 U.S. 159, 175-7......
  • An American (State) in Paris: The Constitutionality of U.S. States' Commitments to the Paris Agreement
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 48-11, November 2018
    • November 1, 2018
    ...Clause . Because the Supremacy Clause likely does not preempt these state actions, 209 the Compact Clause similarly should not. 198. 148 U.S. 503 (1893). 199. Id . at 517-18. 200. Id . at 518. 201. Id . at 519. 202. 153 U.S. 155, 168-70 (1894). 203. See 426 U.S. 363, 370 (1976). 204. 434 U.......
  • The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 23 No. 3, July 1993
    • July 1, 1993
    ...political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893). A compact is a contract. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 92; West Virginia ex rel Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 28-29, 35 (1950). All......
  • 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