Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson
United States Supreme Court
223 U.S. 605 (1912)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Philadelphia Co. (plaintiff) was a corporation that owned Brunot’s Island in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania state commissioners, based on a state statute, determined the boundary line of the island according to the high-water and low-water lines. Some time after the boundary line was set, a considerable portion of the shore on the back channel was washed away and became slightly submerged. After that, the federal government had a dam constructed on the Ohio River near the island. As a result, a portion of the island became further submerged and became navigable. Later, the United States secretary of war established a harbor line that ran across the submerged portion of the island. The harbor line ran across an area that had been established to be within the island’s boundary from the state commissioners’ line. Philadelphia Co. filed a lawsuit and alleged that the secretary of war was not authorized to establish a harbor line over its land. Philadelphia Co. had developed a plan to construct a wharf or pier for its operations that would obstruct the harbor line. Philadelphia Co. sought to set aside the harbor lines and sought an injunction prohibiting the federal government from bringing criminal charges based on Philadelphia Co. asserting a claim to that land. The trial court granted a demurrer, or a motion to dismiss, and the appellate court affirmed. Philadelphia Co. petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hughes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.