State of New Mexico v. State of Colorado
Headline: Court settles New Mexico–Colorado border dispute, upholds Colorado’s claim, orders a detailed resurvey with permanent markers, appoints a commissioner, and splits costs equally between the two states.
Holding: The Court dismissed New Mexico’s bill and sustained Colorado’s cross-bill, fixing the boundary along specified Preston and Darling survey lines, accepting a Perkins restoration for a portion, and appointing a commissioner to mark the line.
- Fixes the state border along historic survey lines and monuments.
- Orders a new resurvey and permanent boundary markers to be placed.
- Splits all costs and commissioner expenses equally between the two states.
Summary
Background
The dispute was between the State of New Mexico and the State of Colorado over the true location of their common boundary. The record includes several historical surveys and monuments: the Preston Monument, the Macomb Monument, an 1868 survey by Ehud N. Darling, a 1900 retracement by Levi S. Preston, a 1917 restoration by Wm. C. Perkins, and work by Howard B. Carpenter in 1902–1903 that destroyed earlier markers.
Reasoning
The Court’s central question was which surveyed lines and monuments mark the lawful boundary. The Court dismissed New Mexico’s bill and sustained Colorado’s cross-bill. It fixed the boundary along the Preston line to the Macomb Monument and the Darling line from Macomb to the 109th meridian, while treating Perkins’s 1917 restoration of a portion of the Darling line as the true location for that portion. The Court named Arthur D. Kidder as commissioner to run, locate, and mark the line, directing him to follow original survey marks and field notes (and Perkins’s line where restored). The Court ordered restoration of monuments destroyed by Carpenter and removal of Carpenter’s later corners.
Real world impact
The ruling requires a formal resurvey with permanent monuments and a detailed report, map, and field notes from the commissioner. Those materials must be sent to the two Governors, and objections must be filed within forty days. If a commissioner’s post becomes vacant while the Court is not in session, the Chief Justice may appoint a replacement. The commissioner’s expenses and all case costs are to be divided equally between the two states.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?