Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mobile Transportation Co. Vs. Mobile

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 06, 1903

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

59 entries 7 linked 52 unlinked
Show
  1. Packer Vs. Bird US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1891
  2. St. Louis Vs. Rutz US Supreme Court · Feb 02, 1891
  3. HardIn Vs. Jordan US Supreme Court · May 11, 1891
    Relied / Followed
  4. Hanford Vs. Davies US Supreme Court · May 18, 1896
  5. Goodtitle Vs. Kibbe US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
  6. Pollard's Lessee Vs. Hagan US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1845
  7. Barney Vs. Keokuk US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1876
  8. U.S. 479 (1903) U.S. Supreme Court Mobile Transportation Co. v. Mobile
    Search
  9. U.S. 479 (1903) Mobile Transportation Company v. Mobile
    Search
  10. the navigable waters below high water mark within the limits of the state, not previously granted. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan
    Search
  11. manage the shore and soil granted in such manner as they may deem best for the public good. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  12. mark within the limits of the state, not previously granted, was so conclusively settled by this Court in Pollard v. Hagan
    Search
  13. pronounced in 1844. Prior to this time, however, and in 1839, the Supreme Court of Alabama, in the case of Mobile v. Eslava
    Search
  14. mark. This was also declared to be the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Alabama as late as 1853, when, in Magee v. Hallett
    Search
  15. as well as those of the Supreme Court of the United States, extend beyond high water mark at that time, citing Pollard v. Hagan
    Search
  16. Abbot v. Kennedy
    Search
  17. Ala. 393, and Goodtitle v. Kibbe
    Search
  18. How. 471. This last case was little more than an affirmance of Pollard v. Hagan
    Search
  19. In Boulo v. New
    Search
  20. formed which was not usually covered by water at high tide. It was held the title was in the state. In Williams v. Glover
    Search
  21. and at its ordinary stage. No reference was made to the prior authorities respecting tide waters. In Demopolis v. Webb
    Search
  22. citing Williams v. Glover
    Search
  23. at this point apparently far above the tidal effect. In the same case afterwards before the court on its merits, Webb v. Demopolis
    Search
  24. or to low water mark, or to the middle thread of the stream, was not a federal, but a local, question, citing Barney v. Keokuk
    Search
  25. U. S. 371 , and Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green
    Search
  26. related to tidal streams. In its opinion in this case, the Supreme Court of Alabama seems to admit that, in Webb v. Demopolis
    Search
  27. The law is definitely settled as to this point, and it could hardly have been the purpose of the decision in Webb v. Demopolis
    Search
  28. variation in height. In regard to this class of cases, the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Mobile v. Eslava
    Search
  29. ownership extends only to high water mark has been consistently adhered to ever since, and notably so in Kennedy v. Beebe
    Search
  30. Pollard v. Greit
    Search
  31. Magee v. Hallett
    Search
  32. Boulo v. New
    Search
  33. hand, in the cases which Page 187 U. S. 487 hold that private ownership extends to low water mark, Bullock v. Wilson
    Search
  34. Williams v. Glover
    Search
  35. Demopolis v. Webb
    Search
  36. Ala. 659, and Webb v. Demopolis
    Search
  37. others by the thread of the stream. Some of these cases are mentioned in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley in Hardin v. Jordan
    Search
  38. U. S. 488 upon tidewaters, its decision in that regard cannot be reviewed by this Court. Central Land Co. v. Laidley
    Search
  39. but it was fully settled by this Court with respect to these titles in Pollard v. Hagan
    Search
  40. How. 471, and Hallett v. Beebe
    Search
  41. do by the act of 1867, much reliance is placed by the transportation company upon the case of Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois
    Search
  42. U.S. Supreme Court Mobile Transportation Co. v. Mobile
    Search
  43. Mobile Transportation Company v. Mobile
    Search
  44. Pollard v. Hagan
    Search
  45. of Mobile v. Eslava
    Search
  46. and Goodtitle v. Kibbe
    Search
  47. of Pollard v. Hagan
    Search
  48. In Williams v. Glover
    Search
  49. In Demopolis v. Webb
    Search
  50. Webb v. Demopolis
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial