Veatch

Veatch v. White

Good Law
23 F.2d 69·1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3138
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 28, 1927No. 5205California1,219 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hunt, J.

Appellees, plaintiffs below, under licenses issued by the state of Washington, oj)erate fish traps in the Columbia river, and contend that the locations of the traps are within the territorial jurisdiction of that state. Defendants appellants deny that the traps are located within the jurisdiction of Washington, and allege that they are within the state of Oregon. The District Court held that the traps were located within the jurisdiction of Washington, and issued injunction against interference. Defendants, who are fish commissioners of the state of Oregon, appealed.

Reduced to a short statement, appellants’ position is that about the points of location of the traps the middle of the channel of the Columbia has shifted northward until it is now between Puget Island and the fish traps; that such change has resulted from erosion of the shore of Puget Island, and the formation of shoals or sand bars on the Oregon side; and that the boundary between Washington and Oregon lias correspondingly changed.

In the act of Congress admitting Oregon into the Union (Act Feb. 14, 1859, 11 Stat. 383 ), the boundary was fixed as follows: “Beginning- one marine league at sea due west from the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.