NEW MEXICO
v.
TEXAS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
New Mexico and Texas disputed the location of their boundary line along the Rio Grande River between the 32° and 31° 47' north latitude lines. The Supreme Court confirmed the boundary line established by a court-appointed Commissioner and declared it to be the true boundary between the two states, with costs split equally between them.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
On consideration of the report of Samuel S. Gannett, the Commissioner heretofore selected to run, locate and mark the boundary between the State of New Mexico and the State of Texas in the Valley of the Rio Grande River extending southwardly from the parallel of 32° north latitude to the parallel of 31° 47' on the international boundary between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico, which report was presented herein October 6, 1930; and no objection or exception to such report being presented, although the time therefor has expired;
It is now adjudged, ordered and decreed as follows:
1. The said report is in all things confirmed; 2. The boundary line delineated and set forth in the said report and on the accompanying maps is established and declared to be the true boundary between the States of New Mexico and Texas in the Valley of the Rio Grande River from the parallel of 32° north latitude to the parallel of 31° 47' on the international boundary between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico;
3. As it appears that the said Commissioner has completed his work conformably to the decree of this Court of April 9, 1928 (276 U. S. 658), the said Commissioner is hereby discharged.
4. The Clerk of this Court shall transmit to the Chief Magistrates of the States of New Mexico and Texas copies of this decree, duly authenticated under the seal of this Court, together with copies of the report of the Commissioner and of the accompanying maps;
5. The Clerk of this Court shall distribute and deliver to the Chief Magistrates of the States of New Mexico and Texas and to the Secretary of the Interior of the United States, all copies of the report of the Commissioner, with the accompanying maps, now in his hands, save that he shall retain three copies of each for such purposes as may arise in his office;
6. The costs in this cause shall be borne and paid in equal parts by the States of New Mexico and Texas. [See also, 275 U. S. 279; 276 U. S. 557, 558.]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gregg Dyeing Co. v. Query, 286 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1932)…ly may local sales of gasoline thus brought into the State be taxed, but its use as well. This was specifically determined in Bowman v. Continental Oil Co., 256 U. S. 642, 648, 649. See Hart Refineries v. Harmon, supra; Breece Lumber Co. v. Asplund, 283 U. S. 788. There is an exception in the case of a tax directly on use in interstate commerce, as on use in interstate transportation. Helson v. Kentucky, 279 U. S. 245, 252; Eastern Air Transport v. South Carolina Tax Comm., 285 U. S. 147. In view of these we…
-
Pauley v. State of Cal., 75 F.2d 120 (9th Cir. 1934)…P. 353. See, also, People v. Sterling Refining Co., supra, 86 Cal. App. at pages 563, and 567, 261 P. 1080; George E. Breece Lumber Co. v. Mirabal, 34 N. M. 643, 287 P. 699, 700, 701, 84 A. L. R. 827, affirmed George E. Breece Lumber Co. v. Asplund, 283 U. S. 788, 51 S. Ct. 352, 75 L. Ed. 1415. A license-tax is an “excise,”or a “privilege” or “occupation” tax. Within - the meaning of the constitutional provision that we are now discussing, it is not a “property” tax. The Supreme Court of California has repe…
Authorities Cited
- New Mexico v. Texas, 276 U.S. 558 (U.S. 1928)
- New Mexico v. Texas, 275 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1927)