Vermont v. New Hampshire
Headline: Court establishes Vermont–New Hampshire boundary along the Connecticut River at the low-water mark, orders marking of named points, and appoints a commissioner to fix and record the line.
Holding:
- Fixes the exact state boundary along the Connecticut River affecting local control and property.
- Requires both states to share costs for marking and the commissioner’s expenses equally.
- Bars states and residents from contesting adjudged territory and allows future adjustments for erosion.
Summary
Background
Two States, Vermont and New Hampshire, disputed where their shared border runs along the Connecticut River. A Special Master made findings about the true boundary, and on May 29, 1933 the Court sustained those findings. The Court fixed the boundary as a line beginning at the granite monument marking the southeast corner of Vermont and the southwest corner of New Hampshire (the "Mud Turtle") at low water on the river’s west side, running northerly along the western low-water mark to the southern line of Pittsburg, New Hampshire. The decree defines "low water mark" as the point the river reaches at its lowest normal stage, not counting extreme droughts, and lists many specific bridges, dams, and points to be marked.
Reasoning
The core question was where the true state line lies along the river. Accepting the Special Master’s report, the Court ordered the low-water boundary located and permanently marked at the specified points. The Court appointed Samuel S. Gannett as Special Commissioner to locate, mark, and report on those points. The Commissioner must be sworn, may take new evidence under oath with notice to the parties, erect permanent monuments (including upland reference monuments when needed), and submit a report for Court approval; objections to that report must be filed within forty days.
Real world impact
The decree determines which state controls specific riverbank territory and clarifies local authority for residents, towns, and property owners. Both States will share equally in the Commissioner’s compensation and all marking costs. The Court also issued perpetual injunctions barring either State or its citizens from disputing the territory awarded to the other State and retained the case on the docket for future orders or adjustments for erosion or accretion.
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?