Oklahoma v. Textas

Citations

• 256 U.S. 70
• 41 S. Ct. 420
• 65 L. Ed. 831
• 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1695

Syllabus

<p>Oklahoma brought this suit against Texas to establish the boundary between the two States where it follows the course of the Red River from the 100th degree of west longitude to the easterly boundary of Oklahoma, contending that, as fixed by the Treaty of February 22, 1819 (8 Stat. 252), the line followed the south bank of that river and that this was finally and conclusively adjudicated in the case of United States v. Texas, 162 U. S. 1, wherein the final decree declared, “that the territory east of the 100th meridian of longitude, west and south of the river now known as the North Fork of Red River, and north of a line following westward, as prescribed by the treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain, the course, and along the south bank, both of Red River and of the river now known as the Prairie Dog Town Fork or South Fork of Red River until such line meets the 100th meridian of longitude — which territory is sometimes called Greer County — constitutes no part of the territory properly included within or rightfully belonging to Texas at the time of the admission of that State into the Union, and is not within the limits nor under the jurisdiction of that State, but is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America;” the United States, intervening to protect proprietary interests claimed for itself and for Indians in the bed of the river, supported these contentions of Oklahoma; while Texas contended that the boundary was fixed by the treaty at the middle of the main channel of the river, and denied that its precise location, whether there or on the south bank, was determined by the former proceeding, asserting that the issues there respecting the river were confined to the question which of the two forks was the Red River of the treaty and to the ownership of and jurisdiction over the disputed land lying between them.</p> <p>Held: (1) That, since there was jurisdiction over the subject-matter and parties in the former case, and