Skip to main content

State v. Cunningham

Citations

  • 102 Miss. 237
  • 59 So. 76

Syllabus

<p>1. States. Power. Agreements. Congressional consent. Constitution 1890, section 26.</p> <p>States are sovereigns and may enter into any compact or agreement they see fit with each other except as prohibited by section 10 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, forbidding such agreement without the consent of congress, but such consent may be manifested by resolution as well as by formal act.</p> <p>2. Congress of the United States. Power. States. Jurisdiction. Boundary.</p> <p>Under joint resolution No. 5 of Congress approved January 26, 1909, /vol. 35, U. S. Stat. at Large, page 1161, giving its consent that the states of Mississippi and Arkansas could agree upon a boundary line and settle the jurisdiction to be exercised by each over the Mississippi river, these states were given absolute and complete power to agree to such jurisdiction and chapter 141 of the Laws of Mississippi 1910 accepting an agreement proposed by an act iof the state of Arkansas, Laws 1909, page 889, extending the criminal jurisdiction of Mississippi to the Arkansas bank of the Mississippi river, and agreeing that the two states should have concurrent jurisdiction over such river, was authorized by such resolution and congress was invested with the power to pass such resolution.</p> <p>5. Same.</p> <p>By virtue of such resolution of congress and the acts of the legislatures of Arkansas and Mississippi, each state became empowered to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the waters of the Mississippi river as to all crimes or misdemeanors and to make and enforce its own laws in respect thereto.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>By virtue of said resolution of congress and said legislative acts of the two states, Mississippi may prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors upon the waters of the Mississippi river and punish their violation at all points of the river covered by the agreement.</p> <p>:5. Same.</p> <p>But neither state can conduct a prosecution against any person for the doing o

Judges: Cook, Mayes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.