Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
· 4/3/1893

Virginia v. Tennessee

Citations

  • 148 U.S. 503
  • 13 S. Ct. 728
  • 37 L. Ed. 537
  • 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2248

Syllabus

<p>The boundary line between the States of Virginia and Tennessee, which was ascertained and adjusted by commissioners appointed by and on behalf of each State, and marked upon the surface of the ground between the, summit of White Top Mountain and the top of the Cumberland Mountains, having been established and confirmed by the State-, of Virginia in January, 1803, and by the State of Tennessee in November, 1803, and having been recognized and acquiesced, in by both parties for a long course of years, and having been treated by Congress as the true boundary between the two States, in its districting them for judicial and revenue purposes', and in its action touching the territory in which Pederá! elections were to be held and for which Pederal appointments were to be made, was a line established under an agreement or compact between the two States, to which the consent of Congress was constitutionally given; and, as so established, it takes effect as a definition, of the true boundary, even if it be found to vary somewhat from the line established in the original grants.</p> <p>The history of the Royal Grants, and of the Colonial and State Legislation upon this subject reviewed.</p> <p>An agreement or compact as to boundaries may be made between two States, and the requisite consent of Congress may be given to it subsequently, or may be implied from subsequent-action of Congress itself towards the two States; and when such agreement or compact is thus made, and is thus assented to, it is valid.</p> <p>What .“an agreement or compact” between two States of the Union is, and what “ the consent of Congress ” to such agreement or compact is, within the meaning of Article I of the Constitution, considered and explained.</p> <p>A boundary line between States or Provinces which has been run dut, located and marked upon the earth, and afterwards recognized ■ and acquiesced in by the parties for a long course of years, is conclusive.</p>

About this case

Virginia v. Tennessee

This article includes a list of general references , but **it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations **. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (June 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message )

A U.S. Supreme Court case with a similar name can be found in volume 158 of the _United States Reports _.

Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893),[1] was a suit brought before the Supreme Court of the United States that sought to settle two questions:

  • What is the correct boundary between the two states and, if the boundary was inaccurately set, can the state ask the court to change it?
  • Does an agreement setting the boundary between two states require approval of Congress under the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution ?

When two states have a controversy between each other, the case is filed for original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States . That is one of the very limited circumstances in which the court acts as original jurisdiction (a trial court) although, as the suit was at equity rather than law, no jury was impaneled if either side had even wanted one in the first place. In all other cases, the court acts as the highest appellate court in the United States.

The court decided that if a prior agreement between the two states sets the boundary, both states ratify that agreement, and one state later discovers that the boundary was wrong (such as the other state received a larger share of territory than originally planned), unless the other state agrees to change it, the original agreement stands.

In this particular instance, the Supreme Court rejected Virginia's contention that the intent of the original "charters of the English sovereigns" should take precedent over the 1803 compromise, which sought to address the situation initially and was agreed upon by both states.

As to what represents an interstate compact requiring approval from Congress, the court said it is agreements that would in some fashion increase the power of a state. If a state, for example, wanted to send an exhibit to a World's Fair in another state, it would not need approval by Congress to contract to use a canal owned by another state for its exhibit or its people to pass through along the way.

If a compact or agreement between two states requires congressional approval, the approval may be implied, such as if a state sends information to Congress about an agreement, and Congress accepts and records the details. Approval may be requested in advance, or, for a type of compact in which the details could not be known before the compact was ratified, after the compact is created.

The court decided that because the states informed Congress of the original survey that both states hired people to establish carefully and then enacted as legislation by the two states, the agreement was implicitly approved by Congress, and the border between the two states had been set forth in the survey.

See also

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_v._Tennessee&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: See also")

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_v._Tennessee&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: References")

  1. ↑ "Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)" . Justia Supreme Court. Retrieved February 15, 2023.

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_v._Tennessee&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: External links")

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virginia_v._Tennessee&oldid=1330671791 "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

Judges: Field

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.