« PrejšnjaNaprej »
same kind, make, or type;” and “shall be held to apply to all trains, locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce."
This act was to take effect September first, nineteen hundred and three, and nothing in it was to be held or construed to relieve any common carrier “from any of the provisions, powers, duties, liabilities, or requirements” of the act of 1893, all of which should apply except as specifically amended.
As we have no doubt of the meaning of the prior law, the subsequent legislation cannot be regarded as intended to operate to destroy it. Indeed, the latter act is affirmative, and declaratory, and, in effect, only construed and applied the former act. Bailey v. Clark, 21 Wall. 284; United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 556; Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 682; Wetmore v. Markoe, post, p. 68. This legislative recognition of the scope of the prior law fortifies and does not weaken the conclusion at which we have arrived.
Another ground on which the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals was rested remains to be noticed. That court held by a majority that as the dining car was empty and had not actually entered upon its trip, it was not used in moving interstate traffic, and hence was not within the act. The dining car had been constantly used for several years to furnish meals to passengers between San Francisco and Ogden, and for no other purpose. On the day of the accident the eastbound train was so late that it was found that the car could not reach Ogden in time to return on the next westbound train according to intention, and it was therefore dropped off at Promontory to be picked up by that train as it came along that evening.
The presumption is that it was stocked for the return, and as it was not a new car, or a car just from the repair shop, on its way to its field of labor, it was not “an empty,” as that term is sometimes used. Besides, whether cars are empty or loaded, the danger to employés is practically the same, and we agree with the observation of District Judge Shiras in Voelker v. Railway Company, 116 Fed. Rep. 867, that “it can
not be true that on the eastern trip the provisions of the act of Congress would be binding upon the company, because the
cars were loaded, but would not be binding upon the return trip, because the cars are empty.'
Counsel urges that the character of the dining car at the time and place of the injury was local only and could not be changed until the car was actually engaged in interstate movement or being put into a train for such use, and Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, is cited as supporting that contention. In Coe v. Errol it was held that certain logs cut in New Hampshire, and hauled to a river in order that they might be transported to Maine, were subject to taxation in the former State before transportation had begun.
The distinction between merchandise which may become an article of interstate commerce, or may not, and an instrument regularly used in moving interstate commerce, which has stopped temporarily in making its trip between two points in different States, renders this and like cases inapplicable.
Confessedly this dining car was under the control of Congress while in the act of making its interstate journey, and in our judgment it was equally so when waiting for the train to be made up for the next trip. It was being regularly used in the movement of interstate traffic and so within the law.
l'inally it is argued that Johnson was guilty of such contributory negligence as to defeat recovery, and that, therefore, the judgment should be affirmed. But the Circuit Court of Appeals did not consider this question, nor apparently did the Circuit Court, and we do not feel constrained to inquire whether it could have been open under $ 8, or, if so, whether it should have been left to the jury under proper instructions. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed; the
judgment of the Circuit Court is also reversed, and the cause remanded to that court with instructions to set aside the verdict and award a new trial.
Statement of the Case.
MISSOURI V. NEBRASKA.
NEBRASKA 9. MISSOURI.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
No. 5, Original. Submitted November 28, 1901.-Decided December 19, 1904.
Accretion is the gradual accumulation by alluvial formation and where a
boundary river changes its course gradually the parties on either side hold by the same boundary--the center of the channel. Avulsion is the sudden and rapid change in the course and channel of a boundary river. It does not work any change in the boundary, which remains as it was in the center of the old channel although no water may be flowing therein. These principles apply alike whether the rivers be boundaries
between private property or between States and Nations. The boundary line between Missouri and Nebraska in the vicinity of Island
Precinct is the center line of the original channel of the Missouri River as it was before the avulsion of 1867 and not the center line of the channel since that time, although no water is now flowing through the original
channel. Nothing in the acts of 1820 and 1836 relating to Missouri or the act ad
mitting Nebraska into the Union indicates an intent on the part of Congress to alter the recognized rules of law fixing the rights of parties where a river changes its course by accretion or by avulsion.
This is a case of disputed boundary between two States of the Union.
The suit was commenced by an original bill filed in this court by the State of Missouri against the State of Nebraska. The relief sought by the former State is a decree declaring its right of possession of, and its jurisdiction and sovereignty over, certain territory east and north of the center of the main channel of the Missouri River as it runs between the two States at the present time; that Missouri be quieted in its title thereto; and that the State of Nebraska be forever enjoined and restrained from disturbing Missouri in the full enjoyment and possession of said territory.
The State of Nebraska, after answering, filed a cross bill
Statement of the Case.
asking a decree confirming the possession, jurisdiction and sovereignty of Nebraska over said territory; that the boundary line between that part of Missouri known as Atchison County and that part of Nebraska known as Nemaha County, be ascertained and established, and permanent monuments erected to indicate the location of such line; and that the State of Missouri be enjoined and restrained from disturbing the State of Nebraska in the full enjoyment and possession of said territory.
The commissioners heretofore appointed to take the evidence have filed their report, and it is agreed that their finding of facts is correct. The case is before us upon questions of law arising out of the pleadings, the report of the commissioners, and the stipulation of the parties.
By an act of Congress of March 6, 1820, provision was made for the admission of Missouri into the Union with the following boundary: "Beginning in the middle of the Mississippi River, on the parallel of thirty-six degrees north latitude; thence west, along that parallel of latitude, to the St. Francois River; thence up, and following the course of that river, in the middle of the main channel thereof, to the parallel of latitude thirtysix degrees and thirty minutes; thence west along the same, to a point where the said parallel is intersected by a meridian line passing through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas River, where the same empties into the Missouri River, thence, from the point aforesaid north, along the said meridian line, to the intersection of the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines, making the said line to correspond with the Indian boundary line; thence east, from the point of intersection last aforesaid, along the said parallel of latitude, to the middle of the channel of the main fork of the said river Des Moines; thence down and along the middle of the main channel of the said river Des Moines, to the mouth of the same, where it empties into the Mississippi River; thence, due east, to the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi River; thence down, and following the course
of the Mississippi River, in the middle of the main channel thereof, to the place of beginning: Provided, That said State shall ratify the boundaries aforesaid: (a) And provided also, That the said State shall have concurrent jurisdiction on the river Mississippi, and every other river bordering on the said State, so far as the said rivers shall form a common boundary to the said State, and any other State or States, now or hereafter to be formed and bounded by the same, such rivers to be common to both; and that the river Mississippi, and the navigable rivers and waters leading to the same, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said State as to other citizens of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll, therefor, imposed by the said State." 3 Stat. 545.
On January 15, 1831, the State of Missouri, speaking by its Legislature, memorialized Congress to make more certain and definite its northwest boundary. That memorial, among other things, stated: “When this State government was formed, the whole country on the west and north was one continued wilderness, inhabited by none but savages, and but little known to the people or to the Government of the United States. Its geography was unwritten, and none of our citizens possessed an accurate knowledge of its localities, except a few adventurous hunters and Indian traders. The western boundary of the State as indicated by the act of Congress of the sixth of March, eighteen hundred and twenty, and adopted by the Constitution of Missouri, is a 'meridian line passing through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas River, where the same empties into the Missouri River,' and extends from the parallel of latitude of 36 degrees and thirty minutes north, 'to the intersection of the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines.' The part of this line which lies north of the Missouri River has never been surveyed and established, and consequently its precise position and extent are unknown. It is believed, however, that it extends about one hundred miles north from the Missouri