Poole v. Fleeger

Last updated
Poole v. Fleeger
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided February 11, 1837
Full case nameBurgess Poole and Others, Plaintiffs in Error v. The Lessee of John Fleeger and Others
Citations36 U.S. 185 ( more )
11 Pet. 185; 9 L. Ed. 680; 1837 U.S. LEXIS 174
Holding
Plaintiffs are granted title to land in Kentucky improperly conveyed by Tennessee prior to the Compact of 1820 establishing the two states' mutual border.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Roger B. Taney
Associate Justices
Joseph Story  · Smith Thompson
John McLean  · Henry Baldwin
James M. Wayne  · Philip P. Barbour
Case opinion
MajorityStory, joined by unanimous

Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 185 (1837), is a 7-to-0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the states of Kentucky and Tennessee had properly entered into an agreement establishing a mutual border between the two states. The plaintiffs in the case were granted title to property improperly conveyed by the state of Tennessee north of this border. In the ruling, the Supreme Court asserted the fundamental right of states and nations to establish their borders regardless of private contract, and made a fundamental statement about the rights of parties to object to a trial court ruling under the rules of civil procedure.

Contents

Background

In 1606, during European colonization of the Americas, James I of England granted the Charter of 1606 to the newly established Virginia Company, asserting royal title to Native American-occupied land between the 34th and 45th latitudes and 100 miles (160 km) inland, and permitting the Virginia Company to establish colonies there. [1] In 1609, James I redefined the Colony of Virginia's boundaries to extend the colony's northern and southern boundaries as well as asserting title to all land west to the Pacific Ocean. [2] In 1632, Charles I of England took the Colony of Virginia's grant north of the Potomac River away from Virginia and gave it to the new colony known as the Province of Maryland. [3] Subsequent negotiations between the Province of Pennsylvania colony and Colony of Virginia further established the Virginia colony's northwestern border. [4]

In 1629, Charles I also granted Sir Robert Heath a charter giving him title to Native American-occupied land from the northern boundary of what is modern-day Florida north to Albemarle Sound (31st latitude), extending from the Atlantic Ocean west to the Pacific Ocean. [5] In 1663, Charles II of England revoked the Heath charter and issued a new charter to eight English noblemen (the "Lords and Proprietors"). [6] In 1665, this charter was amended to extend the land grant northward roughly to the current border between North Carolina and Virginia. [6] In 1729, the Proprietors were forced to turn their charters over to George II of Great Britain, and North Carolina was separated from South Carolina. [7]

Conflicting land claims as well as claims that land grants extended to the Pacific Ocean proved highly contentious issues after the American Revolution. To help resolve the issue, in 1781 Virginia agreed to surrender to the United States federal government all title to its land claims west of the Ohio River. [8] Titled was transferred in 1784, and the United States Congress passed the Land Ordinance of 1784, Land Ordinance of 1785, and the Northwest Ordinance to turn these lands into territories and (eventually) states. [9] North Carolina officials fought for six years over the issue of cession, but in 1790 agreed to transfer title of its western lands to the United States as well. [10] Congress subsequently created the Southwest Territory (which encompassed the modern boundaries of the state of Tennessee) out of the ceded lands. [11] In 1792, after 10 constitutional conventions and three statehood enabling acts passed by the Virginia legislature, Kentucky was admitted as a state on June 1, 1792. [12] Tennessee was admitted as a state on June 1, 1796. [13]

However, Kentucky's borders were only vaguely described at points, and determination of the final border still remained when Kentucky joined the union. [14] In 1779–1780, Kentucky's southern border was surveyed and ascertained westward to the Tennessee River. [14] The "Walker line" tended slightly to the north and did not run truly westward along 36 degrees, 30 minutes north (which was the actual border, also called the "Mathews line"). [14] Complicating matters, in 1818 Andrew Jackson and Isaac Shelby purchased 2,000 square miles (5,200 km2) from the Chickasaw Indian tribe. [15] Known as the "Jackson Purchase," the purchase's southern border (with Tennessee) ran along the Mathews line. [16] Although the Walker line was extended to the Ohio River (which formed the Purchase's western boundary), it was called the "Munsell line" (or "Alexander and Munsell line") on the western side of the Tennessee River and formed the new border with Tennessee. [16] Kentucky and Tennessee agreed in the Compact of 1820 to accept the Mathews line to the Tennessee River, and from that point it should follow the Munsell line. [17]

However, between 1786 and 1795, North Carolina had given title to much land in the disputed area to American Revolutionary War veterans in compensation for their services. [18] Tennessee had also granted land in the area to military veterans between 1809 and 1814. [18] In 1832, John Fleeger and others sued, seeking title to 2,727 acres (11.04 km2) of land in Montgomery County, Tennessee which lay south of the Walker line and north of the Mathews line. [19] Fleeger and the other plaintiffs were the heirs of Frederick Rohrer, whose will (registered in the state of Pennsylvania) they claimed gave them title to the land. [19] Poole and the other defendants were the heirs of John Montgomery, a Virginia military veteran who had claimed the land after being given title to it by the state of Virginia in 1784. [19]

A United States district court held that, under the Compact of 1820, Poole and the other plaintiffs were entitled to the land in question. [18]

Decision

Associate Justice Joseph Story delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.

Story noted that Article 6 of the Compact of 1820 specifically protected land titles held by veterans and their heirs and assigns, while vacant land east of the Tennessee River and north of the Walker line would be the property of Kentucky and disposable by it. [20] He then asserted in powerful language the right of the states of Kentucky and Tennessee to establish their borders as they wished: [21]

It cannot be doubted that it is a part of the general right of sovereignty belonging to independent nations to establish and fix the disputed boundaries between their respective territories, and the boundaries so established and fixed by compact between nations become conclusive upon all the subjects and citizens thereof, and bind their rights and are to be treated, to all intents and purposes as the true and real boundaries. This is a doctrine universally recognized in the law and practice of nations.

Story therefore refused to upset the Compact of 1820. [22]

The Compact of 1820 specifically upset any land titles granted by North Carolina or Tennessee north of latitude 36 degrees, 30 minutes north as improperly granted, Story affirmed. [23] The defendants had argued that the Compact of 1820 violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, which barred any state from passing "any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..." But Story concluded that the Contract Clause did not apply here. The right of a state to set its borders was paramount (albeit subject to Congress' authority to admit states to the union), and the improper establishment of that boundary according to the Walker line created a defect in the contract which could not survive scrutiny. [24]

Justice Story also addressed an issue of court procedure raised by the defendants. At trial, the defendants had argued that Rohrer's will had not been properly registered in Tennessee and thus did not govern the land title in Tennessee, and that the will had not been so registered until after the plaintiffs' suit had already begun. The trial court had overruled these objections. The plaintiffs had taken no exception to the trial court's ruling, and had not stated their right to reserve an exception. Did this create grounds for an appeal? Story concluded it did not. In a major statement about civil procedure, he wrote, "In the ordinary course of things at the trial, if an objection is made and overruled as to the admission of evidence and the party does not take any exception at the trial, he is understood to waive it." [25] But even if the plaintiffs had managed to retain their right to object to the trial court's ruling, Story concluded, it did not matter when the will was registered in Tennessee. In a major statement on probate, Story concluded that if registration is correctly made, the time of the registration is immaterial. [25]

The defendants at trial had also argued that the plaintiffs were attempting to seek title to the land through tenancy in common, but that a tenant in common cannot recover on a joint demise (which the plaintiffs were seeking). The trial court had overruled this objection, and once again the defendants had not taken exception to the trial court's ruling. Story reiterated his fundamental rule of civil procedure: "The party not taking any exception, and acquiescing in the intimation of the court, must be understood to waive the point as a matter of error and to insist upon it only as a matter for a new trial." [26]

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Related Research Articles

Tennessee River river in the southeastern United States

The Tennessee River is the largest tributary of the Ohio River. It is approximately 652 miles (1,049 km) long and is located in the southeastern United States in the Tennessee Valley. The river was once popularly known as the Cherokee River, among other names, as many of the Cherokee had their territory along its banks, especially in eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama. Its current name is derived from the Cherokee village Tanasi.

Transylvania Colony Short-lived extra-legal colony in present-day Kentucky

The Transylvania Colony, also referred to as the Transylvania Purchase, was a short-lived, extra-legal colony founded during 1775 by land speculator Richard Henderson, who controlled the North Carolina-based Transylvania Company. Henderson and his investors had reached an agreement to purchase a vast tract of Cherokee lands west of the southern and central Appalachian Mountains through the acceptance of the Treaty of Sycamore Shoals with most leading Cherokee chieftains then controlling these lands. In exchange for the land the tribes received goods worth, according to the estimates of some scholars, about 10,000 British pounds. To further complicate matters, this early American frontier land was also claimed at the same time by both the Province of Virginia and the North Carolina colony.

Slave states and free states Division of U.S. states in which slavery was either legal or illegal

In the United States before 1865, a slave state was a state in which the slave trade was legal, while a free state was one in which it was not. There were some enslaved persons in most free states in the 1840 census, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 specifically stated that an enslaved person remained enslaved even when she or he fled to a free state.

Kentucky Bend Peninsula in Kentucky, Fulton

The Kentucky Bend, variously called the New Madrid Bend, Madrid Bend, Bessie Bend, or Bubbleland, is an exclave of Fulton County, Kentucky, encircled by the states of Tennessee and Missouri. It is a portion of a peninsula defined by an oxbow loop meander of the Mississippi River, and its inclusion in the state of Kentucky stems from uncertainties of the course of the Mississippi River when the boundary between Tennessee and Kentucky was established.

John Rowan (Kentucky) American politician (1773-1843)

John Rowan was a 19th-century politician and jurist from the U.S. state of Kentucky. Rowan's family moved from Pennsylvania to the Kentucky frontier when he was young. From there, they moved to Bardstown, Kentucky, where Rowan studied law with former Kentucky Attorney General George Nicholas. He was a representative to the state constitutional convention of 1799, but his promising political career was almost derailed when he killed a man in a duel stemming from a drunken dispute during a game of cards. Although public sentiment was against him, a judge found insufficient evidence against him to convict him of murder. In 1804, Governor Christopher Greenup appointed Rowan Secretary of State, and he went on to serve in the Kentucky House of Representatives and the U.S. House of Representatives.

Richard Henderson (jurist) American pioneer

Richard Henderson was an American pioneer and merchant who attempted to create a colony called Transylvania just as the American Revolutionary War was starting. After the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the organization of the state government in North Carolina, he was re-elected judge, but was prevented from accepting that position by his participation in a scheme organized under the name of the Transylvania Compact.

Parallel 36°30′ north Circle of latitude north of the Equator, historically significant as the line of the Missouri Compromise

The parallel 36°30′ north is a circle of latitude that is 36 and one-half degrees north of the equator of the Earth. This parallel of latitude is particularly significant in the history of the United States as the line of the Missouri Compromise, which was used to divide the prospective slave and free states west of the Mississippi River, with the exception of Missouri, which is mostly north of this parallel.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), was a suit brought before the Supreme Court of the United States that sought to settle two questions:

Royal Colonial Boundary of 1665

The Royal Colonial Boundary of 1665 marked the border between the Colony of Virginia and the Province of Carolina from the Atlantic Ocean westward across North America. The line follows the parallel 36°30′ north latitude that later became a boundary for several U.S. states as far west as the Oklahoma Panhandle, and also came to be associated with the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U.S. 1 (1910), is a 9-to-0 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the boundary between the American states of Maryland and West Virginia is the south bank of the North Branch Potomac River. The decision also affirmed criteria for adjudicating boundary disputes between states, which said that decisions should be based on the specific facts of the case, applying the principles of law and equity in such a way that least disturbs private rights and title to land.

State of Alabama v. State of Georgia, 64 U.S. 505 (1860), is a 9-to-0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the true border between the states of Alabama and Georgia was the average water mark on the western bank of the Chattahoochee River. In coming to its conclusion, the Court defined what constituted the bed and bank of a river. The case has had international repercussions as well. The Supreme Court's definition was adopted by courts in the United Kingdom in the case Hindson v. Ashby (1896) 65 LJ Ch. 515, 2 Ch. 27.

Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court Court era recognizing Native American tribal rights

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) issued some of the earliest and most influential opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of aboriginal title in the United States, several of them written by Chief Justice John Marshall himself. However, without exception, the remarks of the Court on aboriginal title during this period are dicta. Only one indigenous litigant ever appeared before the Marshall Court, and there, Marshall dismissed the case for lack of original jurisdiction.

Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, 18 U.S. 374 (1820), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the proper boundary between the states of Indiana and Kentucky was the low-water mark on the western and northwestern bank of the Ohio River. Motion by the plaintiff, Handly's lessee, to eject inhabitants of a peninsula in the Ohio River was denied.

Aboriginal title in the Taney Court

The Supreme Court of the United States, under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (1836–1864), issued several important decisions on the status of aboriginal title in the United States, building on the opinions of aboriginal title in the Marshall Court.

Path Grant Deed

The Path Grant Deed is a document regarded as a first step toward the American westward migration across the Appalachian Mountains, resulting from negotiations at Sycamore Shoals in March 1775. The land acquired within the boundaries of the Path Grant allowed Daniel Boone to develop the Wilderness Road free from attack or claims by the Cherokee. The Path Grant was recorded on November 15, 1794 by the Hawkins County, Tennessee registrar in Deed Book #1, pages 147-151

The North Carolina–Tennessee–Virginia Corners is a tripoint at which North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia meet. The landmark is in the Iron Mountains and is roughly equidistant between Snake Mountain to the south and Mount Rogers to the northeast.

Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010), was an original jurisdiction United States Supreme Court case. It arose from a disagreement between the state of North Carolina and the other members of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact over the funding for a joint project. Eight states had formed the compact in 1983 to manage low-level radioactive waste in the southeastern United States. In 1986, North Carolina was chosen as the location for the regional waste facility, and it asked the other states for funding to help with the project. The project stalled and was eventually shut down, despite North Carolina receiving $80 million from the other states. After the project's demise, the other states demanded their money back, but North Carolina refused to repay them, leading to this case.

<i>Penn v Lord Baltimore</i> Judicial decision of Lord Hardwicke LC

Penn v Lord Baltimore (1750) 1 Ves Sen 444 was a judicial decision of Lord Hardwicke LC in relation to the long-running Penn–Calvert boundary dispute.

References

  1. ↑ Hubbard, American Boundaries: The Nation, the States, the Rectangular Survey, 2009, p. 7-9.
  2. ↑ Hubbard, American Boundaries: The Nation, the States, the Rectangular Survey, 2009, p. 10.
  3. ↑ Hubbard, American Boundaries: The Nation, the States, the Rectangular Survey, 2009, p. 22-23.
  4. ↑ Hubbard, American Boundaries: The Nation, the States, the Rectangular Survey, 2009, p. 28-29, 34.
  5. ↑ Chiorazzi and Most, Prestatehood Legal Materials: A Fifty-State Research Guide, Including New York City and the District of Columbia, 2006, p. 840.
  6. 1 2 Chiorazzi and Most, Prestatehood Legal Materials: A Fifty-State Research Guide, Including New York City and the District of Columbia, 2006, p. 840-841.
  7. ↑ Chiorazzi and Most, Prestatehood Legal Materials: A Fifty-State Research Guide, Including New York City and the District of Columbia, 2006, p. 841.
  8. ↑ Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderland, American Passages: A History of the United States, 2009, p. 174.
  9. ↑ Miller, Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny, 2006, p. 62.
  10. ↑ Bergeron, Paths of Past: Tennessee, 1770–1970, 1979, p. 18-19.
  11. ↑ Bergeron, Paths of Past: Tennessee, 1770–1970, 1979, p. 48.
  12. ↑ Harrison, Kentucky's Road to Statehood, 1992, p. 19-90
  13. ↑ Bergeron, Paths of Past: Tennessee, 1770–1970, 1979, p. 26.
  14. 1 2 3 Harrison and Klotter, A History of Kentucky, 1997, p. 20.
  15. ↑ Harrison and Klotter, A History of Kentucky, 1997, p. 20-21.
  16. 1 2 Harrison and Klotter, A History of Kentucky, 1997, p. 21.
  17. ↑ Garrett, History of the South Carolina Cession, and the Northern Boundary of Tennessee, 1884, p. 26-28.
  18. 1 2 3 Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185.
  19. 1 2 3 Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185, 186.
  20. ↑ Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185, 208–209.
  21. ↑ Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185, 209.
  22. ↑ Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185, 209–210.
  23. ↑ Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185, 210.
  24. ↑ Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185, 210–211.
  25. 1 2 Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185, 211.
  26. ↑ Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 185, 212.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.