The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Complainants v. the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant
Citation | 37 U.S. 657,12 Pet. 657,9 L.Ed. 1233 |
Parties | THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, COMPLAINANTS v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, DEFENDANT |
Decision Date | 01 January 1838 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 657-659 intentionally omitted] ON the 16th of March, 1832, the state of Rhode Island, by their solicitor, filed a bill against the state of Massachusetts, for the settlement of the boundary between the two states; and moved for a subpoena to be issued, according to the practice of the Court, in similar cases.
This motion was held under advisement until the following term; and a subpoena was awarded and issued on the 2d of March, 1833.
This subpoena was returned with service on the 30th July, 1833; and on the 18th January, 1834, the appearance of Mr. Webster was entered for the defendants; and, on his motion, the oause was continued with leave to plea, answer, or demur.
On the 12th January, 1835, a plea and answer was filed by Mr. Webster; and on the 22d of February, 1836, by agreement of counsel, it was ordered by the Court, that the complainant file a replication to the answer of the defendant, within six months from the last day of January term, 1836, or that the cause shall stand dismissed. The complainant filed a replication on the 18th of August, 1836; and at the same time, a 'notice of intention to move the Court for leave to withdraw the replication, upon the ground that the rule requiring the same was agreed to and entered into by mistake.'
The bill filed by the complainants, set forth the original charter granted on the third day of November, 1621, by King James the First, to the council at Plymonth, for planting, ruling, ordering and governing New England, in America, describing the limits and boundaries of the territory so granted. The grant or conveyance to the council at Plymouth, of the 19th of March, 1628, to Sir Henry Rosewell and others, of a certain tract of land described in the same, as 'all that part of New England, in America, aforesaid, which lies and extends between a great river there, commonly called Monomack, alias Merrimac, and a certain other river, there called Charles river, being in the bottom of a certain bay, there commonly called Massachusetts, alias Mattachusetts, alias Massatusetts, bay; and, also, all and singular those lands and hereditaments, whatsoever, lying within the space of three English miles on the south part of the said Charles river, or of any or every part thereof: and, also, all and singular the lands and hereditaments, whatsoever, lying and being within the space of three English miles to the southward of the southernmost part of the said bay, called Massachusetts, alias Mattachusetts, alias Massatusetts bay; and, also, all those lands and hereditaments, whatsoever, which lie and be within the space of three English miles to the northward of the said river, called Monomack, alias Merrimac, or to the northward of any and every part thereof, and all lands and hereditaments, whatsoever, lying within the limits aforesaid, north and south in latitude and breadth, and in length and longitude of and within all the breadth aforesaid, throughout the main lands there, from the Atlantic and western sea and ocean on the east part, to the South sea on the west part.' The letters patent of confirmation and grant of Charles the First, of 4th of March, 1629, to Sir Henry Rosewell and others, for the lands included in the charter of James the First; and the deed of the council at Plymouth, to them by the name of 'The Governor and Company of Mattachusetts Bay in New England,' incorporated by the said letters patent.
The bill further stated that on the 7th day of June, 1635, the council established at Plymouth for planting a colony and governing New England, in America, yielded up and surrendered the charter of James the First, to Charles the First; which surrender was duly and in form accepted. That after the granting of the letters patent, before set forth, and prior to the granting of the letters patent afterwards set forth in the bill to the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, the tract of land comprised within the limits of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, had been colonized and settled with a considerable population by emigration, principally from England and the colony of the Massachusetts bay; and that the persons who had so colonized and settled the same, were seised and possessed by purchase and consent of the Indian natives, of certain lands, islands, rivers, harbours and roads, within said tract. That on the 8th of July, 1663, King Charles the Second, by letters patent, granted a charter of incorporation to William Brenton, John Coddington and others, by the name of 'The Governor and Company of the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England, in America;' and granted and conferred to the corporation, by the letters patent,
The bill proceeds to state the cancelling and vacating of the charter to 'The Governor and Company of Massachusetts bay in New England,' on a scire facias; and afterwards the regrant of the same territory, with other territories known by the name of the colony of Massachusetts Bay and colony of New Plymouth, the province of Maine, &c., by King William and Queen Mary, on the 7th of October, 1691. The description of the territory then granted, so far as the same is important in this case, was the following:
The bill states, that the province of Massachusetts and the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, thus established, continued under the charters and letters patent until July 4, 1776, when with their sister colonies they became independent states. The bill alleges the dividing boundary line, under the letters patent and charter to the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and Massachusetts, to have been 'a line drawn east and west three English miles south of the river called Charles river, or of any or every part...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Sperling
... ... Schwab, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant Milton Sperling and United States Pictures, Inc ... State of Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 1838, 12 Pet ... citizens of the same state with the complainants in this action. * * * It is further alleged, in ... ...
-
Southern Pacific Company v. Marie Jensen
... ... , Attorney General of New York, for defendant in error ... Mr ... Pacific Company, a corporation of the state of Kentucky, where it has its principal office ... Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 721, 9 L ... ...
-
United States Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission
... ... of (1) facilitating proper determination of state and local tax liability of multistate taxpayers; ... In Rhode Island v. Massachusetts , 12 Pet. 657, 726, 9 ... ...
-
New Jersey v. New York
... ... 118 S.Ct. 1726 ... 140 L.Ed.2d 993 ... State of NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff, ... State of NEW ... River, Article First; provided that Ellis Island, then three acres, was part of New York, despite ... Daniel Smirlock, Albany, NY, for defendant" ... ON BILL OF COMPLAINT ... \xC2" ... than in a case of disputed boundary.'' Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 4 How. 591, 639, 11 ... ...
-
Sovereign Immunity and the Uses of History
...Establishment of Political Power, 12 CONST. COMMENT 67 (1995); Jackson, supra note 4, at 13-25. 419. 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824). 420. 37 U.S. 657 (1838). 421. Id. at 720 (citation omitted). 422. 58 U.S. 478 (1854) (Curtis, J., dissenting) (concluding that the United States was not entitl......
-
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
...& Collins, supra note 18, at 397–433. 28. There is arguably no more sovereign attribute than territory. See Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657, 726 (1838). Yet even in the Court’s boundary dispute docket it has employed equitable discretion in lieu of pure legal entitlement. See, e.......
-
Nebraska's $160 Million Liability?-entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Nebraska, 241 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2001)
...parte New York, 256 U.S. 490 (1921). 94. See South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U.S. 286, 315-21 (1904); Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657 (1838). 95. See United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621, 644 (1892). 96. See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976). Congress has Section 5 a......
-
CHAPTER 8 WATER RIGHTS LITIGATION FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES PRACTITIONER
...the Constitution, the States gave this Court complete judicial power to adjudicate disputes among them, Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 720 (1838), and this power includes the capacity to provide one State a remedy for the breach of another.77 Thus, the existence of a retrospect......