Harlan F. Stone

Name: Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court
Author: Harlan F. Stone

Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Harlan F. Stone. It explores elements such as New York, Massachusetts and grant.

Quotes from Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court (Harlan F. Stone)

Harlan F. Stone, Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court

“ The fact that by the English common law, and by the law of those states bounded by tidal waters, the public has rights in the seashore, and that grants extending only to the high-water mark of such waters nevertheless give access to the sea, accounts for the rule, generally recognized and followed, that a grant whose boundaries extend to the 'shore' or 'along the shore' of the sea, carries only to highwater mark. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Harlan F. Stone, Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court

“ On the other hand, a grant of the soil under water in private ownership would have set material limits on the free exercise of the sovereign control of New York over the navigable waters of the state and on the free use of the principal waterway of the newly settled territory. All these considerations lead to the conclusion that the grants in the Treaty of Hartford did not convey to Massachusetts, which took in private ownership, any title in the bed of the lake, unless the technical language employed in the grants compels us to take an opposite view. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Harlan F. Stone, Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court

“ There is no conceivable purpose for which it could be supposed that Massachusetts intended to retain such a proprietary interest in the shore as is now claimed, or to deny to its grantees and to settlers in the granted territory access to the great natural waterway upon its northern boundary. We are not dealing here with the disposition of the jus publicum, but with land held by Massachusetts in private ownership and granted by it to private persons. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Harlan F. Stone, Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court

“ The several corporate and individual defendants who are in possession of or claim an interest in land now in controversy, derive their title, through mesne conveyances, from Phelps and Gorham, who took under the grants last described, from the Five Tribes and from the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Massachusetts is not entitled to relief in this suit unless title in the locus quo was acquired by it by the Treaty of Hartford and remained in it after its grant to Phelps and Gorham. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Harlan F. Stone, Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court

“ The grant made by New York to Massachusetts embraced a vast domain extending more than 140 miles from east to west, and from the northern boundary of Pennsylvania to the Canadian line, comprising about 6,000,000 acres of land, largely an unsettled wilderness inhabited by Indians, to which the navigable waters of Lake Ontario were the principal means of access. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Harlan F. Stone, Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court

“ In ascertaining that meaning, not only must regard be had to the technical significance of the words used in the grants, but they must be interpreted 'with a view to public convenience, and the avoidance of controversy,' and 'the great object, where it can be distinctly perceived, ought not to be defeated by those technical perplexities which may sometimes influence contracts between individuals'. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Harlan F. Stone, Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court

“ It is established that since the grant to Phelps and Gorham, there has been a shifting of the shore line of Lake Ontario, and that the land now in dispute, which certainly in 1803 and probably at the time of the Phelps and Gorham grant, was under water, north of the shore line of Lake Ontario, is now above water and south of the high-water mark of the lake. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Harlan F. Stone, Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court

“ The purpose of it was, while reserving and securing to New York its rights as a sovereign state in the granted territory, to confer upon Massachusetts the right of pre-emption of the soil from the Indians, and to enable it to make sale of the lands to settlers by conferring on it the power to grant this right of pre-emption. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Harlan F. Stone, Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court

“ The applicable principles of English law then well understood, the object of the grant, contemporaneous construction of it and usage under it for more than a century, all are to be given consideration and weight. ”

Harlan F. Stone

Summary

Quotes from Massachusetts v. New York — Opinion of the Court (Harlan F. Stone)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature