Poole v. Fleeger | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
Decided February 11, 1837 | ||||||
Full case name | Burgess Poole and Others, Plaintiffs in Error v. The Lessee of John Fleeger and Others | |||||
Citations | 36 U.S. 185 (more) 11 Pet. 185, 9 L. Ed. 680 |
|||||
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 | ||||||
|
||||||
Case opinions | ||||||
Majority | Story, joined by Taney, Thompson, McLean, Baldwin, Wayne, Barbour |
Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. 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 |
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]
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]
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.
Coordinates: 50°43′N 1°59′W / 50.717°N 1.983°W
Poole i/puːl/ is a large coastal town and seaport in the county of Dorset, on the south coast of England. The town is 33 kilometres (21 mi) east of Dorchester, and Bournemouth adjoins Poole to the east. The local council is Borough of Poole and was made a unitary authority in 1997, gaining administrative independence from Dorset County Council. The borough had a population of 147,645 according to the 2011 census, making it the second largest settlement in Dorset. Together with Bournemouth and Christchurch, the town forms the South East Dorset conurbation with a total population of over 465,000.
Human settlement in the area dates back to before the Iron Age. The earliest recorded use of the town's name was in the 12th century when the town began to emerge as an important port, prospering with the introduction of the wool trade. In later centuries the town had important trade links with North America and at its peak in the 18th century it was one of the busiest ports in Britain. During the Second World War, the town was one of the main departing points for the D-Day landings of the Normandy Invasion.
Poole is a surname, and may refer to:
Poole is a constituency represented in the House of Commons of the UK Parliament since 1997 by Robert Syms, a Conservative.
The first version of the Poole constituency existed from 1455 until 1885. During this period its exact status was a parliamentary borough, sending two burgesses to Westminster per year, except during its last 17 years when its representation was reduced to one member.
During its abeyance most of Poole was in the East Dorset seat and since its recreation in 1950 its area has been reduced as the harbour town's population has increased.
Parliament accepted the Boundary Commission's Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies which slightly altered this constituency for the 2010 general election since which it has electoral wards:
The borough is an economically very diverse borough. In the centre and north are a significant minority of Output Areas which in 2001 had high rankings in the Index of Multiple Deprivation, contributing in 2012 with the remainder to producing for Poole the highest unemployment of the constituencies in the county. However, Canford Cliffs is epitomised by one sub-neighbourhood, Sandbanks with its multi-million pound properties, the coastline area has been dubbed as "Britain's Palm Beach" by the national media. Alongside oil extraction, insurance, care, retail and customer service industries choosing the town as their base tourism contributes to overall a higher income than the national average, however the divergence is not statistically significant and the size of homes varies extensively.