Arkansas v. Tennessee
269 U.S. 152 (1925)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Arkansas v. Tennessee, 269 U.S. 152 (1925)

Syllabus

1. Commissioners appointed in this case to run, locate, and designate part of the boundary between Arkansas and Tennessee along the middle of the main navigable channel of the Mississippi River as it was in 1876 immediately prior to changes wrought by avulsion properly made a preliminary investigation and a provisional survey and location of the line in advance of hearing testimony on the subject. P. 269 U. S. 154.

Page 269 U. S. 153

2. The objection that the line recommended by the commissioner was established by them without considering the evidence held not justified. Id.

3. Absolute accuracy not being attainable, a degree of certainty that is reasonable a a practical matter, is all that is required in locating this boundary. The commissioners therefore did not err in accepting as a general guide, subject to corrections by other evidence available, a map made by a government engineer shortly before the avulsion, based on a reconnaissance by steamboat, conducted without accurate measurements or exact instrumental observations, for the purpose of ascertaining the general appearance of the river and gaining a general idea of the shape and location of the channel. P. 269 U. S. 155.

4. Opinions of some witnesses that the line cannot be located with reasonable certainty held of little weight as against the fact proven and the determination of the commission. P. 269 U. S. 157.

5. Costs and expenses apportioned equally between the two states; except the cost of unnecessary printing of testimony, which is placed upon the party which occasioned it. P. 269 U. S. 158.

Exceptions overruled and final decree directed.

On defendant's exceptions to the report of the commissioners appointed to run, locate, and designate part of the boundary between Arkansas and Tennessee. See246 U. S. 246 U.S. 158; 247 U. S. 247 U.S. 461.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.