Opinion of the Court.

when such river which boats can

of the river,' middle of the main channel,' midchannel,' middle thread of the channel,' are used in enabling acts of Congress and in state constitutions establishing state boundaries. It is the free navigation of the river constitutes a common boundary, that part on and do pass, sometimes called 'nature's pathway' - that States demand shall be secured to them. When a river, navigable in fact, is taken or agreed upon as the boundary between two nations or States, the utility of the main channel, or, what is the same thing, the navigable part of the river, is too great to admit a supposition that either State intended to surrender to the State or nation occupying the opposite shore the whole of the principal channel or highway for vessels and thus debar its own vessels the right of passing to and fro for purposes of defence or commerce. That would be to surrender all, or at least the most valuable part, of such river boundary, for the purposes of commerce or other purposes deemed of great value, to independent States or nations."

The opinions in both of these cases are able and present, in the strongest terms, the different views as to the line of jurisdiction between neighboring States, separated by a navigable stream; but we are of opinion that the controlling consideration in this matter is that which preserves to each State equality in the right of navigation in the river. We therefore hold, in accordance with this view, that the true line in navigable rivers between the States of the Union which separates the jurisdiction of one from the other is the middle of the main channel of the river. Thus the jurisdiction of each State extends to the thread of the stream, that is, to the "midchannel," and, if there be several channels, to the middle of the principal one, or, rather, the one usually followed.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and declared that the boundary line between the State of Iowa and the State of Illinois is the middle of the main navigable channel of the Mississippi River. And, as the counsel of the two States both desire that this boundary line be established at the places where the several bridges mentioned in the pleadings- nine in number- cross the Mississippi River, it is further ordered

Syllabus.

that a commission be appointed to ascertain and designate at said places the boundary line between the two States, such commission, consisting of three competent persons, to be named by the court upon suggestion of counsel, and be required to make the proper examination and to delineate on maps prepared for that purpose the true line as determined by this court, and report the same to the court for its further action.

In re MORRISON, Petitioner.

In re MORRISON, Petitioner.1

ORIGINAL.

Nos. 8, 9. Original. Argued December 12, 13, 1892. — Decided January 3, 1893.

A collision occurred, in Vineyard Sound, between the steam yacht A., at anchor, owned by V. of New York, and the steamship D., owned by a Massachusetts corporation. The A. sank. The corporation filed a libel against V., to limit its liability, in the District Court for Massachusetts, under §§ 4283 and 4284 of the Revised Statutes, alleging that the D. was lying at Boston, and averring no negligence in the D., and negligence in the A., and praying for an appraisement of the value of the D. and her pending freight at the time of the collision, and offering to give a stipulation therefor. It was alleged that the A. was worth over $250,000, and that the value of the D. and her freight was less than $150,000. The court appointed three appraisers, who made the appraisement ex parte, and reported the value of the D. at $80,000 and of her freight at $2395.33, and a stipulation was given for those amounts. A monition was then issued for notice to V. and all persons concerned to prove their claims for loss by a day named. The monition was duly published but was not personally served on V. in the Massachusetts District. The court made an order enjoining V. and all other persons from suing the corporation

1 No. 8 is entitled in the opinion of the court "Henry Morrison, Petitioner, v. The District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and the Honorable Addison Brown, Judge of the said Court. Petition for a writ of mandamus." No. 9 is entitled in the opinion" Henry Morrison, Petitioner, v. The District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts and the Honorable Thomas L. Nelson, Judge of the said Court. Petition for a writ of prohibition."

Syllabus.

or the D. in respect of any claims arising out of the collision "except in these proceedings." Afterwards, M., the master of the A. filed a libel in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, against the corporation, the D., V., and all persons claiming damages from the collision, for apportionment of limited liability, charging the fault wholly on the D., alleging that the loss of V. was $305,000, and that of M. over $1300; and that the value of the D. was over $200,000. Under process the D. was attached, and it was served on the corporation, and V. duly appeared. On motion of the D. and the corporation the District Court in New York, on a hearing of all parties made an order vacating the process issued on the libel of M., setting aside the service thereof on the corporation, releasing the D. from the attachment, and dismissing the libel. The court held that M. had notice, before he filed his libel, of the proceedings in Massachusetts, and of the injunction order issued there. On applications by M. to this court, for a mandamus to the District Court in New York, to vacate its order and reinstate the libel of M., and for a prohibition to the District Court in Massachusetts from proceeding further on the libel filed there; Held,

(1) The District Court in New York dismissed the libel of M. on a hearing on the merits;

(2) If the jurisdiction of that court was in issue before it, the remedy of M. was by a direct appeal to this court, on that question, under § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 827;

(3) If otherwise, the remedy of M., as against the order dismissing the libel, was by an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, for the Second Circuit, under § 6 of the same act;

(4) The mandamus is refused;

(5) The District Court in Massachusetts acquired prior jurisdiction of the proceedings;

(6) That court did not lose its jurisdiction by the fact that the D. subsequently went to New York;

(7) In order to sustain the proceeding it was not necessary that M. or V. should have been personally served with notice thereof within the District of Massachusetts, or that the D. should have been taken and held by the Massachusetts Court;

(8) The filing of the libel by the corporation, with the offer of a stipulation, gave jurisdiction, and no subsequent irregularity in procedure could take it away;

(9) The ex parte appraisement was not void;

(10) The District Court in Massachusetts can order the giving of a new or further stipulation, and, on a failure to comply with such order, can stay the further proceedings of the corporation, deny it all relief, and dismiss its libel;

(11) The provision of Rule 54 in Admiralty, for the giving of a stipulation, instead of making a transfer to a trustee, is valid, and the value involved may be judicially ascertained primarily without a hearing of the persons interested adversely.

Citations for Petitioner.

On the 17th of October, 1892, two applications were made to the court on behalf of Henry Morrison; the first for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York; the second for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition directed to the District Court of Massachusetts. Leave being granted, these petitions were filed, argument was had, and the petitions were both denied. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Samuel B. Clarke and Mr. Elihu Root, (with whom was Mr. Harrington Putnam on the brief,) for the petitioner in each case cited: (1) on the petition for the writ of mandamus; Windsor v. Mc Veigh, 93 U. S. 274; The J. W. French, 13 Fed. Rep. 916; The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239; Ex parte Slayton, 105 U. S. 451; Atkins v. Disintegrating Co., 18 Wall. 272; Ex parte Peter Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 435; Ex parte Russell, 13 Wall. 664; Ex parte United States, 16 Wall. 699; Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Ex parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384; Ec parte Parker, 120 U. S. 737; In re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451; Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738; United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196; Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167; In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 Fed. Rep. 241; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; Alexandria v. Fairfax, 95 U. S. 774; Smith v. Woolfolk, 115 U. S. 143; Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 U. S. 261; Hassall v. Wilcox, 130 U. S. 493; Bradstreet v. Neptune Insurance Co., 3 Sumner, 600; The Rio Grande, 23 Wall. 458; Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300; Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35; Manro v. Almeida, 10 Wheat. 472; Norwich Company v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104; Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U. S. 185; The Mamie, 110 U. S. 742; The City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 468; Ex parte Phoenix Insurance Co., 118 U. S. 610; Butler v. Boston & Savannah Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527; In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1: and, (2) on the petition for a writ of prohibition; Comyn's Dig. Tits. Prohibition, Admiralty; Anony

Citations against Petition.

mous, 2 Salk. 553; Vaughan v. Evans, 8 Mod. 374; Johnson v. Lee, 5 Mod. 238; Robinson v. Godsalve, 1 Ld. Raym. 123; Doctor James's Case, Hobart, 17; Rowland v. Hockenhulle, 1 Ld. Raym. 698; Mendyke v. Stint, 2 Mod. 272; Ex parte Christy, 3 How. 292; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68; In re Fassett, 142 U. S. 479; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall. 364; United States v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black, 522; Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430; Mayor &c. of London v. Cox, L. R. 2 H. L. 239; Serjeant v. Dale, 2 Q. B. D. 558; James v. London & Southwestern Railway, L. R. 7 Ex. 187; Norwich Company v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104; Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co. v. Hill Manufacturing Co., 109 U. S. 578; The Rio Grande, 23

Wall. 458.

Mr. Robert D. Benedict, opposing the petition for a writ of mandamus, cited: Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U. S. 794; Ex parte Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 108 U. S. 566; In re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451; Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co. v. Hill Manufacturing Co., 109 U. S. 578; The City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 468; Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104; In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1; Butler v. Boston & Savannah Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527.

Mr. John Lowell, with whom was Mr. William D. Sohier, opposing the petition for a writ of prohibition, cited: Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515; Ex parte Ferry Co., 104 U. S. 519; Ex parte Slayton, 105 U. S. 451; Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167; In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472; New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia Brass and Copper Co., 91 U. S. 656; Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2; Brown v. Bridge, 106 Mass. 563; Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558; The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239; The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24; S. C. 118 U. S. 507; The City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 468; Providence & V. Y. Steamship Co. v. Hill Manufacturing Co., 109 U. S. 578; Butler v. Boston & Savannah Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527; The Cargo ex Venus, L. R. 1 Ad. & Ecc. 50; The Thales, 10 Blatchford,

VOL. CXLVII-2