In the Supreme Court of US two states, Rhode Island and Massachusetts had disputes over boundaries. The latter claimed ownership for more than two decades, but later, the former challenged the ownership in the Court of Law. In 1962, the State of Massachusetts was supposed to own the territory, which stretched three miles along Charles River in the south. One year later, Rhode Island received a grant bounded by the same river, but to the southern line of Massachusetts boundary. Failure to issue an express order of the crown was because no one expected the boundary to lead to disputes in the future.
As a way of settling the dispute, Rhode Island formed an expert team of inquiry in 1710, who agreed that the boundary should start from the former line, Woodward and Saffrey taken as starting points. Agents and authorities in both states agreed about this, but later commissioners from Rhode Island challenged the decision alleging that the whole arrangement was not valid and realistic. After filling the bill against Massachusetts states, attorneys of Rhode Island stated in their bill that the former had enjoyed a disputed right for some time. On the other hand, the defense side challenged the bill and attested that Rhode Island wanted to disturb the possession of the land. However, in the Massachusetts Courts, the bill proposed it was overruled. After that, the attorneys from Rhode Island amended the bill and moved to court to present it and avail copies to the defendant. This followed a rigorous process of appeals and case postponement, but ultimately a ruling was made.
Issue
The issue was that; it was not clear whether the measurement would start from the water or along the boundary of the river. Apart from that, one would be interested to know whether, there was a mistake in re-claiming the land that had been possessed by Massachusetts for two decades.
Held
After having a series of appeals and case postponements, as to when the case will be heard, Judge Taney, who presented the ruling stating that the plaintiff (Rhode Island), should restore her track of land. She was supposed to enjoy the privileges of the disputed.
Rationale
The ruling was referred to the fact that the plaintiff depended on the authority of colonies and as indicated in the charter. For this reason, the plaintiff, through the colonial power and jurisdiction, was entitled to the land, and it could only change ownership upon a written concession. The place or the disputed track of land was within the boundary of the Plaintiff’s territory and therefore, he was supposed to own, control, and manage its affairs.
Rule of law
According to legal provision provided in article 17 of the US constitution, there is no State that will be deprived its land in favor of United States or any other State.
