270 U.S. 295 (1926)
MICHIGAN
v.
WISCONSIN.
No. 19, Original.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued January 5, 1926.
Decided March 1, 1926.
IN EQUITY.
*298 Mr. Meredith P. Sawyer, with whom Messrs. Andrew B. Dougherty, Attorney General of Michigan, and Carl D. Mosier, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief, for complainant.
Mr. R.M. Rieser, with whom Messrs. Herman L. Ekern, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and Emmert L. Wingert were on the brief, for defendant.
MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an original suit in equity brought in this court to determine the boundary between the states of Michigan and Wisconsin from the mouth of the Montreal River at Lake Superior to the ship channel entrance from Lake Michigan into Green Bay. By the Enabling Act of June 15, 1836, c. 99, 5 Stat. 49, under which Michigan became a state in 1837, c. 6, 5 Stat. 144, this boundary is described as follows:
". . . thence [the mouth of the Montreal River] through the middle of the main channel of the said River Montreal, to the middle of the Lake of the Desert; thence, in a direct line to the nearest head water of the Menominee River; thence, through the middle of that fork of the said river first touched by the said line, to the main channel of the said Menominee River; thence, down the centre of the main channel of the same, to the centre of the most usual ship channel of the Green Bay of Lake Michigan; thence, through the centre of the most usual ship channel of the said bay to the middle of Lake Michigan; . . ."
The Territory of Wisconsin was created by an act of April 20, 1836, c. 54, 5 Stat. 10, 11, and this boundary is there described in the reverse direction:
*299 ". . . to a point in the middle of said lake [Michigan], and opposite the main channel of Green Bay, and through said channel and Green Bay to the mouth of the Menominee River; thence through the middle of the main channel of said river, to that head of said river nearest to the Lake of the Desert; thence in a direct line, to the middle of said lake; thence through the middle of the main channel of the Montreal River, to its mouth; . . ."
The only difference between the two descriptions is that in the former the call is for the "most usual ship channel," while in the latter it is for the "main channel," of Green Bay. In the Wisconsin Enabling Act of August 6, 1846, c. 89, 9 Stat. 56-57, under which the state was admitted by the Act of May 29, 1848, c. 50, 9 Stat. 233, this boundary is described as
". . . running with the boundary line of the State of Michigan, through Lake Michigan, Green Bay, to the mouth of the Menominee River; thence up the channel of said river to the Brule River; thence up said last mentioned river to Lake Brule; thence along the southern shore of Lake Brule in a direct line to the centre of the channel between Middle and South Islands, in the Lake of the Desert; thence in a direct line to the head-waters of the Montreal River, as marked upon the survey made by Captain Cramm; thence down the main channel of the Montreal River to the middle of Lake Superior; . . .
". . . That, to prevent all disputes in reference to the jurisdiction of islands in the said Brule and Menominee Rivers, the line be so run as to include within the jurisdiction of Michigan all the islands in the Brule and Menominee Rivers, (to the extent in which said rivers are adopted as a boundary,) down to, and inclusive of, the Quinnesec Falls of the Menominee; and from thence the line shall be so run as to include within the jurisdiction of Wisconsin all of the islands in the Menominee River, from the falls aforesaid down to the junction of said river *300 with Green Bay: Provided, That the adjustment of boundary, as fixed in this act, between Wisconsin and Michigan shall not be binding on Congress, unless the same shall be ratified by the State of Michigan on or before the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight."
The history of events leading up to the present controversy extends over a period of eighty years, and the evidence, including a multitude of official and other maps and documents, constitutes a long and involved record. The case is reviewed in voluminous but well prepared briefs, and was helpfully argued at the bar. This mass of material we have examined with the care properly due the importance of the issue and the high character of the parties litigant; but much of it may be put aside as unnecessary for final consideration, since the determination we have reached depends upon a comparatively few decisive facts and circumstances, either undisputed or clearly established.
In the briefs and oral arguments the boundary is divided for purposes of convenient discussion into three distinct sections, namely: (1) the Montreal River section, extending from the mouth of the Montreal River to the Lake of the Desert and thence to the head-waters of the Menominee River (or to Lake Brule); (2) the Menominee River section, extending from its head-waters (or from Lake Brule) to Green Bay; and (3) the Green Bay section, extending from the last named point through the center of the most usual ship channel of the Green Bay to Lake Michigan. Although our ultimate determination in respect of these three sections rests upon the same basic principle, they are so distinct in their physical characteristics and in respect of much of the evidence peculiarly applicable to each apart from the others, that our conclusions will be more clearly formulated and better understood if we adopt the same plan in the examination of the questions which follows.

*301 The Montreal River Section.

If we had before us nothing but the language of the Michigan Enabling Act, describing this section of the boundary as extending "through the middle of the main channel of the said river Montreal, to the middle of the Lake of the Desert," it would not be easy to avoid the conclusion that it was the understanding of the framers of the act that the river Montreal could be followed to a connection with the Lake of the Desert. And that such was the understanding clearly appears from the record. Moreover, maps in existence at the time of the passage of the act, which were available and must have been known to the framers, depict the Lake of the Desert (or, as it is there called, Lac Vieux Desert) as the source of the Montreal River. But the locality at that time was a wilderness, the topography of which was practically unknown except to the aboriginal inhabitants and the occasional voyageur, trapper and hunter; and, following the date of the passage of the act, it was found that, in fact, the head-waters of the Montreal did not extend to the Lake of the Desert, but fell short of it some fifty or sixty miles. It was subsequently revealed by exploration and surveys that the river from its mouth follows a winding course for several miles eastwardly and then divides into two branches, the westerly branch to its head following a southerly direction and the easterly branch a southeasterly direction. The westerly branch finds its source in a body of water called Island Lake. The easterly branch finally divides into two small tributaries, called, respectively, the Balsam and Pine. The lake, which, in our opinion is sufficiently identified as the one which Congress meant by its call for the Lake of the Desert, is several miles nearer to the point of junction of these tributaries than it is to any point on the westerly branch. Much evidence was submitted on behalf of Michigan in an effort *302 to demonstrate that the westerly branch of the river was the larger stream and was in fact, and was understood by Congress to be, the upper portion of that river, and that Island Lake at the head of the westerly branch was intended by the designation "Lake of the Desert." We think it fairly appears, to the contrary, that the easterly, and not the westerly, branch was, and was understood to be, the upper portion of the Montreal, but a positive conclusion to that effect is not necessary, since our judgment turns upon other and independent considerations.
In 1838, an act of Congress, c. 101, 5 Stat. 244, directed that the boundary line in question be "surveyed, marked, and designated," and by a later act, approved July 20, 1840, c. 54, 5 Stat. 404, 407, the making of the survey was placed under the superintendence of the War Department. Pursuant to this legislation, one Captain Cram was directed to make the survey, which he proceeded to do, completing it in 1841. He submitted two reports to Congress, from which it appears that the description of the boundary "through the middle of the main channel of the said river Montreal, to the middle of the Lake of the Desert" was an impossible one, and that the line could not be run in complete accordance with it. Carrying out as nearly as possible what he conceived to be the intention of Congress, he fixed the head-waters of the Montreal at the junction of the Balsam and Pine, at a point designated and marked "Astronomical Station No. 2," from which point the line was extended in a direct course to the Lake of the Desert. His reports embodied data for the information of Congress and recommended that action be taken by that body definitely to establish the boundary.
Captain Cram's first report is dated December, 1840. He begins it with an analysis of the description we have quoted from the Michigan Enabling Act, from which he infers, that Congress supposed that the Lake of the Desert *303 discharged itself into the Montreal River; that somewhere between Lake Superior and Green Bay there was a known lake bearing that name, since the description is "to the middle of the Lake of the Desert"; that of the various head-waters discharging into the Menominee River one would be found nearest to the Lake of the Desert, since that is the call; and that this would be found to be a branch of the Menominee, and not a lake, since the description is, "through the middle of that fork . . . first touched by the said line."
Following these inferences, he states that the Lake of the Desert has no connection either with the Montreal River or with the Menominee, but constitutes the principal head of the Wisconsin River. His conclusion is that additional action on the part of Congress will be required to the end that the boundary may be defined "in such a manner that it can be established either upon the ground or laid down on a map with that degree of definiteness which should always characterize a boundary line between two states."
On January 12, 1841, the Governor of Michigan addressed a special message to the state Legislature in which he stated that a strict adherence to the terms of the Michigan Enabling Act defining the boundary in question, according to information recently communicated to him by the state geologist, would seem to be "absolutely impracticable." With the message was transmitted the communication referred to, together with a sketch of the country which the Governor thought would present with sufficient certainty the disagreements between the description contained in the enabling act and the actual geography of the region. Thereupon, the Legislature  -  evidently with Captain Cram's report before it, since the bill avers that action was taken "relying on the representations made in said report as to the impossibility of locating said boundary in accordance with the [Michigan *304 Enabling Act]"  -  adopted a joint resolution, reciting that from a critical examination of the country it appeared that a strict and literal conformity with the description was impossible and that presumptively the general intent could be attained without much difficulty if the line be immediately marked and described, and requesting Congress to cause the boundary in question to be surveyed and marked and a commissioner appointed to act with a state commissioner to the end that the boundary be established in conformity with the manifest general intent of the act. The state delegation in Congress was requested by the resolution to endeavor to secure congressional action to effect this object.
In 1842, and again in 1843, a bill was introduced in the United States Senate by a Michigan senator to amend the Michigan Enabling Act so as to make the disputed boundary conform substantially to the line as it was subsequently defined in the Wisconsin Enabling Act, including that portion relating to the division of the islands in the Brule and Menominee rivers. These bills failed, apparently for parliamentary reasons and not because there was any substantive objection to them. Then followed the Wisconsin Enabling Act of 1846, the pertinent words of which we have quoted. The provision of this act describing the boundary now in question, and providing for a division of the islands in the Brule and Menominee, was submitted in the House by a Michigan congressman, with the statement that it had been agreed upon between the members from Michigan and the Wisconsin delegate. Shortly thereafter, Congress directed a survey of "so much of the line between Michigan and Wisconsin as lies between the source of Brule River and the source of Montreal River, as defined by the [Wisconsin Enabling Act]," c. 175, § 4, 9 Stat. 85, 97; and in pursuance thereof a survey was made by William A. Burt, in 1847. Burt's line, which was marked with posts set at *305 half-mile intervals and otherwise identified, substantially followed Cram's recommendation and is the line now claimed by Wisconsin.
It does not appear that Michigan acted affirmatively in respect of the proviso that the adjustment of boundaries as fixed in the Wisconsin Enabling Act should not be binding on Congress unless the same should be ratified by Michigan on or before June 1, 1848. Nevertheless, Wisconsin was admitted by the Act of May 29, 1848, supra, with the express provision that its boundaries should be as prescribed by the Enabling Act of 1846.
But, while Michigan did not in terms ratify the proviso just mentioned, there was inserted in her constitution of 1850, and ratified by the people, the following description of the boundary in question:
". . . to the mouth of the Montreal River; thence through the middle of the main channel of the said River Montreal to the head waters thereof; thence in a direct line to the center of the channel between Middle and South Islands in the Lake of the Desert; thence in a direct line to the southern shore of Lake Brule; thence along said southern shore and down the River Brule to the main channel of the Menominee River; thence down the center of the main channel of the same to the center of the most usual ship channel of the Green Bay of Lake Michigan; thence through the center of the most usual ship channel of the said Bay to the middle of Lake Michigan; . . ." 1915 Comp. L. Mich. 133, 134.
This description was adopted by the constitutional convention held in 1867, with the addition of the words found in the Wisconsin Enabling Act: "as marked upon the survey made by Captain Cram." The same description, including the reference to the Cram survey, was again re-adopted by the Michigan special constitutional commission of 1873. The proceedings of both the convention and the commission show that these re-adoptions were *306 made deliberately and with full understanding. Both proposed constitutions, however, were rejected by the people, but apparently for reasons having no relation to the question of boundaries. Thus the matter rested until 1908, in which year a new and amended constitution was adopted, containing a radically different description of the boundary in question, namely:
". . . thence in a direct line through Lake Superior to the mouth of the Montreal River; thence through the middle of the main channel of the westerly branch of the Montreal River to Island Lake, the head waters thereof; thence in a direct line to the center of the channel between Middle and South Islands in the Lake of the Desert; thence in a direct line to the southern shore of Lake Brule; . . ." 1915 Comp. L. Mich. 209, 210.
By this description for the first time the westerly branch of the Montreal was brought in and the line carried through the main channel thereof to Island Lake. During the same year, the Attorney-General of the State was directed by the state Legislature to investigate and institute proceedings to secure a determination of the correct boundary. The investigation was made and reported; and again the matter rested until 1919, at which time the state Legislature provided for the appointment of a commission to investigate the "disputed" boundary line. This commission made a report in 1921 and was continued by an act of the Legislature passed the same year. The bill was filed in this court on October 8, 1923.
When admitted to statehood, Wisconsin was, and ever since has continued to be, in possession of the area in dispute, that is to say, of all lands within the boundary which she now claims. As early as 1850, county government was established upon the basis of this boundary. In 1874, taxes were assessed and collected by Wisconsin, and by 1886, practically the entire area had been subjected to such taxation. During this time, towns were *307 built, highways constructed, public buildings erected, elections held, Wisconsin law enforced, and other customary acts of dominion and jurisdiction exercised by that state within the disputed area.
From the foregoing facts and circumstances the conclusions are inevitable: that the description in the Michigan Enabling Act of the line from the mouth of the Montreal to the Lake of the Desert was inserted under the mistaken belief that the river connected with the lake; that this mistake was discovered as early as 1841, of which discovery Michigan, long prior to the admission of Wisconsin, had knowledge; that the line as now claimed by Wisconsin was surveyed and marked by Cram and Burt at the dates already stated; that Michigan not only assented to the result of these surveys, but actively participated in securing the insertion of the description of that line in the Wisconsin Enabling Act and herself substantially adopted it by the Constitution of 1850; and that for a period of more than 60 years she stood by without objection with full knowledge of the possession, acts of dominion, and claim and exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the State of Wisconsin over the area in question.
In addition to this, the line as claimed by Wisconsin has been, from the time of the Burt survey, accepted as the true boundary by the United States and, in its surveys, plats and maps, sales and other acts in respect of the public lands, continuously and consistently recognized, with the knowledge of Michigan and without protest on her part. Indeed, nothing appears to indicate dissatisfaction with the boundary thus established until the adoption of the Constitution of 1908, and, even then, except to the extent that this may be regarded as a continuing assertion of a claim to the boundary as there set forth or as originally described in the Michigan Enabling Act, the matter was allowed to rest until 1919.
To meet this situation, it is contended that the State of Michigan through all these years labored under a mistake *308 in respect of the real facts and that this was the result of excusable ignorance on her part. The contention is devoid of merit. The material facts, since at least the date of the Wisconsin Enabling Act, have been so obvious that knowledge of them on the part of the Michigan authorities, if it were not shown, as it is shown, by the evidence, must necessarily be assumed.
Notwithstanding, the State of Michigan at this late day insists that the boundary now be established by a decree of this court in accordance with the description contained in her Constitution of 1908. Plainly, this cannot be done. That rights of the character here claimed may be acquired on the one hand and lost on the other by open, long-continued and uninterrupted possession of territory, is a doctrine not confined to individuals but applicable to sovereign nations as well, Direct United States Cable Co. v. Anglo-American Telegraph Co., [1877] L.R. 2 A.C. 394, 421; Wheaton, International Law, 5th Eng. Ed. 268-269; 1 Moore, International Law Digest, 294 et seq., and, a fortiori, to the quasi-sovereign states of the Union. The rule, long-settled and never doubted by this court, is that long acquiescence by one state in the possession of territory by another and in the exercise of sovereignty and dominion over it is conclusive of the latter's title and rightful authority. Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U.S. 479, 509, et seq.; Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 522-524; Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 53; Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U.S. 1, 40-44; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 4 How. 591, 639; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660, 677; New Mexico v. Colorado, 267 U.S. 30, 40-41. That rule is applicable here and is decisive of the question in respect of the Montreal River section of the boundary in favor of Wisconsin.

The Menominee River Section.
The description in the Michigan Enabling Act of this section of the boundary begins at the head waters of the *309 Menominee River nearest to the Lake of the Desert in a direct line,
"thence, through the middle of that fork of the said river first touched by the said line, to the main channel of the said Menominee River; thence, down the centre of the main channel of the same, to the centre of the most usual ship channel of the Green Bay."
The description in the act creating the Territory of Wisconsin is the same, but in the opposite direction:
". . . thence through the middle of the main channel of said [Menominee] river, to that head of said river nearest to the Lake of the Desert; thence in a direct line to the middle of said lake; . . ."
But the description in the Wisconsin Enabling Act contains important differences:
". . . thence up the channel of said [Menominee] river to the Brule River; thence up said last mentioned river to Lake Brule; thence along the southern shore of Lake Brule in a direct line to the centre of the channel between Middle and South Islands in the Lake of the Desert; . . ." or, stated in the order of the Michigan act: From the center of the channel between Middle and South Islands in the Lake of the Desert in a direct line to the southern shore of Lake Brule; thence along the southern shore of Lake Brule to the Brule River; thence down the Brule River to the Menominee; thence down the channel of the Menominee to its mouth.
The evidence shows that Lake Brule is not the head of the Menominee nearest to the Lake of the Desert, as called for by the Michigan Enabling Act, though the Brule River is the principal tributary of the Menominee; and the inference is pretty clear that the change of description was made in the Wisconsin Enabling Act as a part of a general readjustment of the boundary. At any rate, since this part of the line is not in controversy, we need not consider the matter except as it may reflect light *310 upon the effect of, and the question of Michigan's acquiescence in, the further provision, that, to prevent disputes as to jurisdiction, the line shall be so run as to include within the jurisdiction of Michigan all islands in the Brule and Menominee down to and including the Quinnesec Falls of the Menominee, and thence so as to include within the jurisdiction of Wisconsin all islands in the Menominee below the falls. As to this part of the line, the contention of Wisconsin is that the description in the Wisconsin Enabling Act was in effect a proposed adjustment of the boundary as an undividable unit, and that Michigan, by the Constitution of 1850, having expressly adopted that part of the line from the Lake of the Desert to Lake Brule, cannot be heard to say that she did not also adopt the adjustment of the line in respect of a division of the islands. There is force in this contention, and especially so in view of the fact that the change from the nearest head-water of the Menominee to Lake Brule operated to give Michigan additional territory. To permit her to reap the benefit of the adjustment so far as it is to her advantage and reject it to the extent that it is advantageous to her sister state would be plainly inequitable. We prefer, however, to rest our determination upon the conclusion, fully justified by the record, that,  -  whatever were the rights of the respective states in respect of the islands in question immediately upon the adoption of the Constitution of 1850,  -  Wisconsin, for a period of more than half a century following that time, had the undisputed and undisturbed possession of substantially all of the islands in the river below the Quinnesec Falls, and, without reference to the main channel of the river, exercised jurisdiction and dominion over them with the knowledge and acquiescence of the complainant.
Captain Cram's first report to Congress, dated December, 1840, points out the impracticability of following the center of the main channel of the river:
*311 "The `center' of the main channel of the Menominee River is made a part of the boundary. The River contains numerous islands, and consequently more than one channel, where these islands occur. It will be impossible in many of these cases to know which is the `main channel' without minute surveys. In many cases it was tried and found impossible to decide by a simple inspection or reconnaissance which was the `main channel.' It should also be remarked here that the term `main channel' applied to the multiplicity of channels of the Menominee, would be somewhat ambiguous in any event  -  for, it may be asked  -  Is the main channel the widest channel of the river? Or is it the deepest? If it is the widest or deepest now, will it be the widest or deepest hereafter? Or shall the main channel be that through which the greater quantity of water shall be found to pass at the time of the survey? And if it should occur that two channels at the same island pass equal quantities of water  -  which would then be regarded as the boundary? These questions are sufficient to show the indefiniteness of the term `Main Channel'  -  There are also a few islands in the Brule River to which similar questions might apply in reference to the term `Main Channel.'
"To avoid all ambiguity in reference to these channels, it might be specified in the act defining the boundary, that in ascending the stream, the boundary shall follow the extreme left hand channel of the Brule and the extreme right hand channel of the Menominee down to a well known point of the river  -  say Pe-me-ne Falls; and thence to follow the extreme left hand channel of the remainder of the Menominee to its mouth. Such a division would leave most of the islands in Michigan and the remainder in Wisconsin, and would avoid much expense in minute surveys to ascertain the `main channel' and would leave no indefiniteness upon this part of the boundary. The free use of either channel for the purposes of navigation *312 would, from an established principle of law, be open at all times to the citizens of either state, and the islands would be nearly distributed in equal proportions between the two states."
Following the date of this report in respect of the impossibility  -  or extreme difficulty practically amounting to that  -  of locating the boundary in accordance with the provisions of the Michigan Enabling Act, and, it fairly may be assumed, with a view of effectuating Captain Cram's recommendation, the Michigan Legislature passed the resolution already referred to, calling upon Congress to cause the boundary to be surveyed and marked in conformity with the manifest general intent of the Michigan Enabling Act, and requesting the delegation of the state in Congress to use their efforts to secure such action. This was followed, as already stated, by the introduction of the bills in the Senate and the subsequent insertion, by agreement between the members of Congress from Michigan and the Wisconsin delegate, of the provision in the Wisconsin Enabling Act dividing the islands in accordance with Captain Cram's suggestion, except in a particular not important here.
In 1854, the survey of all of the islands below Quinnesec Falls as a part of Wisconsin, was directed by the United States Surveyor General for Wisconsin, and such survey was immediately begun and thereafter continuously prosecuted. The evidence, in our opinion, fairly shows that, as early as 1879, the greater part in area of all of them had been thus surveyed and platted as belonging to Wisconsin, including many which would fall on what Michigan claims is the Michigan side of the main channel. On behalf of Michigan, it is strongly contended that to this there are important exceptions. But, without going into details, it is enough to say that the clear weight of the evidence is to the contrary. It is true that so-called Island No. 8, or Merryman's Island, was surveyed as in *313 both states; that the Wisconsin survey was subsequently cancelled; and that, thereafter, exclusive jurisdiction over the tract of land constituting it was exercised by Michigan. It is said that, nevertheless, the "island" is now claimed by Wisconsin; but, on the contrary, Wisconsin concedes that it belongs to Michigan. The fact is that the tract was originally considered to be an island and, consequently, surveyed as a part of Wisconsin. Upon further investigation, it was found by the United States Surveyor not to be an island, but, in reality, a part of the Michigan mainland. The Wisconsin survey was, accordingly, cancelled and the title of Michigan thereafter fully conceded. Two other so-called islands of small area in the same vicinity are in like situation.
Some of these islands, comparatively small in area and of little consequence, have never been surveyed or any definite acts of dominion exercised over them by either state. But to this we attach no importance. The assertion and exercise of dominion by Wisconsin over the islands on the Michigan side of the channel was begun and has continued in virtue of, and in reliance upon, the readjustment of the boundary set forth in the Wisconsin Enabling Act. The rule is well-settled in respect of individual claimants that actual possession of a part of a tract by one who claims the larger tract, under color of title describing it, extends his possession to the entire tract in the absence of actual adverse possession of some part of it by another. Clarke's Lessee v. Courtney, 5 Pet. 319, 354; Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U.S. 333, 368; Ellicott v. Pearl, 10 Pet. 412, 442; Smith v. Gale, 144 U.S. 509, 525-526; Montoya v. Gonzales, 232 U.S. 375, 377; Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Goodrich, 213 Fed. 136, 142. Upon like grounds and with equal reason, under circumstances such as are here disclosed, the principle of the rule applies where states are the rival claimants. It results that the Wisconsin Enabling Act, together with the Act *314 of Admission, gave color of title in that state to all of the islands within the limits there described; and that her original and continued possession, assertion and exercise of dominion and jurisdiction over a part of these islands, pursuant to such legislation and with the acquiescence of Michigan, extended Wisconsin's possession, dominion and jurisdiction to all of them, in the absence of actual possession of, or exercise of dominion over, any territory within the boundary by Michigan. The fact that the islands constitute separated tracts of land is of no consequence here, whatever its effect might be under other conditions. In applying the rule, the area within the described boundary, both land and water, must be considered as together constituting a single tract of territory.
We, therefore, hold, as to this section of the boundary, that from Lake Brule to the mouth of the Menominee the line, which is now fixed and finally established by long acquiescence, follows the channels of the Brule and Menominee wherever they are free from islands; that wherever islands are encountered above the Quinnesec Falls the line follows the channel nearest the Wisconsin mainland, so as to throw all such islands into Michigan; and that wherever islands are encountered below the Quinnesec Falls the line follows the channel nearest the Michigan mainland, so as to throw all such islands into Wisconsin.

The Green Bay Section.
In determining the boundary through this section, the question is not embarrassed by differences of description. The calls of the Michigan Enabling Act are down the channel of the Menominee to "the centre of the most usual ship channel of the Green Bay of Lake Michigan; thence through the centre of the most usual ship channel of the said Bay to the middle of Lake Michigan." The Wisconsin Enabling Act calls for the same boundary.
*315 The evidence shows that there are two distinct ship channels, to either of which this description might apply. From the mouth of the Menominee, the channel, according to the Michigan claim, proceeds across the waters of Green Bay in an easterly direction until near the westerly shore of the Door County peninsula; thence, in close proximity to the shore, in a northerly direction to a point opposite Death's Door Channel (or Porte des Morts); thence through that channel into Lake Michigan. The channel claimed by Wisconsin, after leaving the mouth of the Menominee, turns to the north and pursues a northerly direction to a point opposite the Rock Island passage which lies between Rock Island and St. Martin's Island; thence through the Rock Island passage into Lake Michigan. The territory in dispute lies between these rival channels, and embraces two groups of islands: (1) Chambers Island, the Strawberry Islands, and a few others, small and unnamed, all within the main waters of Green Bay west of the Door County peninsula; and (2) Rock, Washington, Detroit and Plum islands, lying between Death's Door Channel and the Rock Island passage, at the north end of the peninsula. The evidence as to which of the two ship channels was the usual one at the time of the adoption of the Michigan Enabling Act is not only conflicting, but of such inconclusive character that, standing alone, we could base no decree upon it with any feeling of certainty. Living witnesses are no longer available; and tradition, recollection of statements made by persons long since dead  -  if of any legitimate value  -  , deductions drawn from ancient documents, more or less cryptic, and inferences based on more recent uses of the channels or on their relative safety and convenience as indicated by physical characteristics, all relied upon in the absence of first-hand evidence, constitute at best most unsatisfactory substitutes. If it were necessary, we should, of course, undertake the task  -  as we should be *316 bound to do  -  of reaching a conclusion from these dubious premises. But, it is not necessary, for, as in the case of the two sections of the boundary just discussed, the title of Wisconsin to the disputed area now in question, is established by long possession and acquiescence; and this conclusion is justified by evidence and concessions of the most substantial character.
There is evidence of acts of dominion and possession of some of the disputed islands while Wisconsin was yet a territory. Almost from the day of her admission, the state has continuously possessed, asserted title and exercised jurisdiction and dominion over all of the islands within the boundary claimed by her. In support of this general statement, the following, among other things, may be cited: On March 21, 1855, Washington, Detroit, Rock and Plum islands, described as being in the waters of Green Bay in Door County, were organized by an act of the Wisconsin Legislature as the town of Washington. Ch. 210, Laws of Wisconsin, 1855. A census taken the same year by the town clerk showed a population of 318, which has since grown, it is said, to about 1000. Since before that time, the United States Land Department, by its surveys, plats and sales of public lands, has uniformly and notoriously recognized the islands as a part of Wisconsin, without objection on the part of Michigan. Indeed, as early as 1837, they were surveyed and platted as a part of Wisconsin Territory. A large number of maps published and available to the public during the years between 1837 and 1878, without exception, show the islands as a part of Wisconsin; and during the same time they do not appear in any survey or upon any map as belonging to Michigan. Never, so far as we are able to find from the record, have they been recognized in any practical way as a part of Michigan or, prior to the commencement of this suit, claimed by that state.
The evidence in respect of the other group of islands, while perhaps not so complete, is definite and clear to the *317 same effect. The taxation of lands on Chambers Island began while Wisconsin was still a territory. In 1861, voters on that island participated in a Wisconsin election. A history of Door County, introduced by complainant, recites that the island constituted an organized town forming a part of Door County, Wisconsin, as early as 1867. Evidence of early and continued recognition and treatment of the island as a part of Wisconsin by the United States through its surveys, etc., is to the same effect as that in respect of the other group. And the evidence is likewise the same in respect of the uniform appearance of Chambers Island and the other small islands of the group upon the old maps as a part of Wisconsin, and their absence from Michigan surveys and maps. The absence of evidence of specific acts of dominion over the Strawberry and the other small islands of this group is easily understood and does not affect the result. They are of little consequence, lying well within the boundary as claimed by Wisconsin, easterly from Chambers Island and near the westerly shore of the Door County peninsula. They appear on all maps as, and have never been regarded or treated otherwise than, a part of Door County. It is impossible to give them a status differing from that of the larger island and the peninsula, between, and within the shadows of, which they lie.
That Wisconsin since statehood has continuously asserted title and has exercised complete and exclusive dominion over all the islands of both groups is really not a serious issue. Indeed, the bill of complaint avers that Wisconsin has possessed herself of, and exercised sovereignty over, the islands, including Washington, Plum, the Strawberries, and numerous other valuable islands, and has excluded and continues to exclude the State of Michigan from her rights thereto; and, more particularly, that "Wisconsin has for many years disregarded the true and *318 rightful boundary . . . and has for a long time past possessed and does now possess, and has asserted and does now assert, civil, criminal and political jurisdiction over those portions of the territory within the Michigan boundaries above described as the Montreal River section, the Menominee River section, and Green Bay section of the disputed territory, aggregating approximately 255,000 acres, . . . and has unlawfully taxed and still continues to unlawfully tax said property, . . ." The explanation relied upon is that the State of Michigan, as a result of her excusable ignorance, has not been aware of the real facts and, therefore, should not be held to have lost rights by long acquiescence which she otherwise might have had. This view cannot be accepted and may be dismissed with a reference to what we have already said as to the same defense in respect of the Montreal River section.
In respect of the controversy as a whole, and each of the three sections, the words of this court in Indiana v. Kentucky, supra, p. 509, are singularly apposite and conclusive:
". . . It was over seventy years after Indiana became a State before this suit was commenced, and during all this period she never asserted any claim by legal proceedings to the tract in question. She states in her bill that all the time since her admission Kentucky has claimed the Green River Island to be within her limits and has asserted and exercised jurisdiction over it, and thus excluded Indiana therefrom, in defiance of her authority and contrary to her rights. Why then did she delay to assert by proper proceedings her claim to the premises? On the day she became a State her right to Green River Island, if she ever had any, was as perfect and complete as it ever could be. On that day, according to the allegations of her bill of complaint, Kentucky was claiming and exercising, and has done so ever since, the *319 rights of sovereignty both as to soil and jurisdiction over the land. On that day, and for many years afterwards, as justly and forcibly observed by counsel, there were perhaps scores of living witnesses whose testimony would have settled, to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, the pivotal fact upon which the rights of the two States now hinge and yet she waited for over seventy years before asserting any claim whatever to the island, and during all those years she never exercised or attempted to exercise a single right of sovereignty or ownership over its soil. It is not shown, as he adds, that an officer of hers executed any process, civil or criminal, within it, or that a citizen residing upon it was a voter at her polls, or a juror in her courts, or that a deed to any of its lands is to be found on her records, or that any taxes were collected from residents upon it for her revenues.
"This long acquiescence in the exercise by Kentucky of dominion and jurisdiction over the island is more potential than the recollections of all the witnesses produced on either side. Such acquiescence in the assertion of authority by the State of Kentucky, such omission to take any steps to assert her present claim by the State of Indiana, can only be regarded as a recognition of the right of Kentucky too plain to be overcome, except by the clearest and most unquestioned proof. It is a principle of public law universally recognized, that long acquiescence in the possession of territory and in the exercise of dominion and sovereignty over it, is conclusive of the nation's title and rightful authority."
The result is that complainant has failed to maintain her case in any particular; and that the claims of Wisconsin as to the location of the boundary in each of the three sections are sustained.
The decree, therefore, will be for Wisconsin, costs to be divided between the parties in accordance with the general rule in cases of this character. North Dakota v. Minnesota, *320 263 U.S. 583. The boundary seems to be sufficiently defined for all purposes of future possession and jurisdiction; but the parties, or either of them, if so advised, may within 30 days submit the form of a decree more particularly to carry this opinion into effect; failing which, a simple decree dismissing the bill will be entered.
It is so ordered.


117 U.S. 312 (1886)
PHŒNIX INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
ERIE AND WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued January 19, 20, 1886.
Decided March 1, 1886.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.
*317 Mr. George D. Van Dyke for appellant (Mr. George A. Black also filed a brief for same).
Mr. George B. Hibbard for appellee.
*319 MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
It being found as matter of fact that the lading of the goods on board the propeller was not completed until the evening of the 24th of July, that she departed on her voyage about midnight, and that the bills of lading were not delivered by *320 the carrier to the shippers until after her departure, it is clear that the bills of lading were not actually delivered until the 25th. But it being also found that oral agreements for the carriage were made on the 24th, with the understanding that bills of lading would be subsequently issued; and that the shippers, having often before shipped goods by this line under similar bills of lading, knew or had every opportunity of knowing their terms and conditions; it is also clear that the bills of lading were but a putting in form of the oral agreements made on the 24th, and took effect as if they had been delivered and accepted on that day.
The certificates of the agent of the insurance company, without which the policy of insurance did not attach to these goods, were also made on that day, and described the goods as on board the propeller. The contract of carriage and the contract of insurance must therefore be treated as substantially contemporaneous, and both made before the loss of the goods. There is nothing to show any misrepresentation or intentional concealment by the assured in obtaining the insurance, or that the insurer had or had not knowledge or notice of the usual form of the bills of lading.
The policy of insurance contains no express stipulation for the assignment to the insurer of the assured's right of action against third persons. In the bills of lading, it is expressly stipulated that the carriers, whose railroad or vessels form part of the line of transportation, shall not be liable for loss or damage by fire, collision, or dangers of navigation; and that each carrier shall be liable only for a loss of the goods while in its custody, "and the carrier so liable shall have the full benefit of any insurance that may have been effected upon or on account of said goods."
The question is, whether under these circumstances the insurer, upon payment of a loss, became subrogated to the right to recover damages from the carrier.
When goods insured are totally lost, actually or constructively, by perils insured against, the insurer, upon payment of the loss, doubtless becomes subrogated to all the assured's rights of action against third persons who have caused or are responsible for *321 the loss. No express stipulation in the policy of insurance, or abandonment by the assured, is necessary to perfect the title of the insurer. From the very nature of the contract of insurance as a contract of indemnity, the insurer, when he has paid to the assured the amount of the indemnity agreed on between them, is entitled, by way of salvage, to the benefit of anything that may be received, either from the remnants of the goods, or from damages paid by third persons for the same loss. But the insurer stands in no relation of contract or of privity with such persons. His title arises out of the contract of insurance, and is derived from the assured alone, and can only be enforced in the right of the latter. In a court of common law, it can only be asserted in his name, and, even in a court of equity or of admiralty, it can only be asserted in his right. In any form of remedy, the insurer can take nothing by subrogation but the rights of the assured. Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 214; Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466, 468; The Monticello, 17 How. 152, 155; Garrison v. Memphis Ins. Co., 19 How. 312, 317; Hall v. Railroad Cos., 13 Wall. 367, 370, 371; The Potomac, 105 U.S. 630, 634, 635; Mobile & Montgomery Railway v. Jurey, 111 U.S. 584, 594; Clark v. Wilson, 103 Mass. 219; Simpson v. Thomson, 3 App. Cas. 279, 286, 292, 293. That the right of the assured to recover damages against a third person is not incident to the property in the thing insured, but only a personal right of the assured, is clearly shown by the fact that the insurer acquires a beneficial interest in that right of action, in proportion to the sum paid by him, not only in the case of a total loss, but likewise in the case of a partial loss, and when no interest in the property is abandoned or accrues to him. Hall v. Railroad Cos., The Potomac, and Simpson v. Thomson, above cited.
The right of action against another person, the equitable interest in which passes to the insurer, being only that which the assured has, it follows that if the assured has no such right of action, none passes to the insurer; and that if the assured's right of action is limited or restricted by lawful contract between him and the person sought to be made responsible for the loss, a suit by the insurer, in the right of the assured, is subject to like limitations or restrictions.
*322 For instance, if two ships, owned by the same person, come into collision by the fault of the master and crew of the one ship and to the injury of the other, an underwriter who has insured the injured ship, and received an abandonment from the owner, and paid him the amount of the insurance as and for a total loss, acquires thereby no right to recover against the other ship, because the assured, the owner of both ships, could not sue himself. Simpson v. Thomson, above cited; Globe Ins. Co. v. Sherlock, 25 Ohio St. 50, 68.
Upon the same principle, any lawful stipulation between the owner and the carrier of the goods, limiting the risks for which the carrier shall be answerable, or the time of making the claim, or the value to be recovered, applies to any suit brought in the right of the owner, for the benefit of his insurer, against the carrier; as, for instance, if the contract of carriage expressly exempts the carrier from liability for losses by fire; York Co. v. Central Railroad, 3 Wall. 107; or requires claims against the carrier to be made within three months; Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264; or fixes the value for which the carrier shall be responsible; Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 112 U.S. 331. So the stipulation, not now in controversy, in the bills of lading in the present case, making the value of the goods at the place and time of shipment the measure of the carrier's liability, would control, although in the absence of such a stipulation the carrier would be liable for the value at the place of destination, as held in Mobile & Montgomery Railway v. Jurey, 111 U.S. 584.
The stipulation in these bills of lading, that the carriers "shall not be liable for loss or damage by fire, collision, or the dangers of navigation," clearly does not protect them from liability for any loss occasioned by their own negligence. By the settled doctrine of this court, even an express stipulation in the contract of carriage, that a common carrier shall be exempt from liability for losses caused by the negligence of himself and his servants, is unreasonable and contrary to public policy, and therefore void. Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357; Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123; Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co., 93 U.S. 174; Railway Co. v. Stevens, 95 *323 U.S. 655. And it may be that, as held by Judge Wallace in a case in the Circuit Court, a stipulation that "no damage that can be insured against will be paid for" would not protect the carrier from liability for his own negligence, because that would be to compel the owners of the goods to insure against the negligence of the carrier. The Hadji, 22 Blatchford, 235.
But the stipulation upon the subject of insurance, in the bills of lading before us, is governed by other considerations. It does not compel the owner of the goods to stand his own insurer, or to obtain insurance on the goods; nor does it exempt the carrier, in case of loss by negligence of himself or his servants, from liability to the owner, to the same extent as if the goods were uninsured. It simply provides that the carrier, when liable for the loss, shall have the benefit of any insurance effected upon the goods.
It is conclusively settled, in this country and in England, that a policy of insurance, taken out by the owner of a ship or goods, covers a loss by perils of the sea or other perils insured against, although occasioned by the negligence of the master or crew or other persons employed by himself. Waters v. Merchants' Louisville Ins. Co., 11 Pet. 213; Copeland v. New England Ins. Co., 2 Met. 432; General Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. 351, 366; Davidson v. Burnand, L.R. 4 C P. 117, 121.
Any one who has made himself responsible for the safety of goods has a sufficient interest in them to enable him to obtain insurance upon them.
Contracts of reinsurance, by which one insurer causes the sum which he has insured to be reassured to him by a distinct contract with another insurer, with the object of indemnifying himself against his own responsibility, (though prohibited for a time in England by statute,) are valid by the common law, and have always been lawful in this country; and in a suit upon such a contract, the subject at risk and the loss thereof must be proved in the same manner as if the original assured were the plaintiff. 3 Kent Com. 278, 279; Sun Ins. Co. v. Ocean Ins. Co., 107 U.S. 485; Mackenzie v. Whitworth, L.R. 10 Ex. 142, and 1 Ex. D. 36.
So a common carrier, a warehouseman, or a wharfinger, *324 whether liable by law or custom to the same extent as an insurer, or only for his own negligence, may, in order to protect himself against his own responsibility, as well as to secure his lien, cause the goods in his custody to be insured to their full value, and the policy need not specify the nature of his interest. Crowley v. Cohen, 3 B. & Ad. 478; De Forest v. Fulton Ins. Co., 1 Hall 84, 110; Waters v. Monarch Assurance Co., 5 El. & Bl. 870; London & Northwestern Railway v. Glyn, 1 El. & El. 652; Savage v. Corn Exchange Ins. Co., 36 N.Y. 655; Joyce v. Kennard, L.R. 7 Q.B. 78; Commonwealth v. Shoe & Leather Ins. Co., 112 Mass. 131; Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore Warehouse Co., 93 U.S. 527; North British Ins. Co. v. London, Liverpool & Globe Ins. Co., 5 Ch. D. 569.
No rule of law or of public policy is violated by allowing a common carrier, like any other person having either the general property or a peculiar interest in goods, to have them insured against the usual perils, and to recover for any loss from such perils, though occasioned by the negligence of his own servants. By obtaining insurance, he does not diminish his own responsibility to the owners of the goods, but rather increases his means of meeting that responsibility. If it were true that a ship owner, obtaining insurance by general description upon his ship and the goods carried by her, could, in case of the loss of both ship and goods, by perils insured against, and through the negligence of the master and crew, recover of the insurers for the loss of the ship only, and not for the loss of the goods, some trace of the distinction would be found in the books. But the learning and research of counsel have failed to furnish any such precedent.
On the contrary, in one of the earliest cases in which the rule that a policy of insurance covers losses by perils insured against, though occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the assured, was judicially affirmed; the assured, being the owner of a ship, had chartered her for a West India voyage, and by the usages of trade bore the risk of bringing the cargo from the shore to the ship; the policy was upon the boats of the ship, and upon goods in them; and the amount recovered of the insurer was for goods being carried from the shore to the ship in *325 her boats, and lost by the wrecking of the boats in consequence of the misconduct and negligence of some of the ship's crew. Such was the state of facts to which Lord Chief Justice Abbott applied the language, cited and approved by Mr. Justice Story in Waters v. Merchants' Louisville Ins. Co., 11 Pet. 222, and by Chief Justice Shaw in Copeland v. New England Ins. Co., 2 Met. 442: "In this case, the immediate cause of the loss was the violence of the winds and waves. No decision can be cited, where, in such a case, the underwriters have been held to be excused in consequence of the loss having been remotely occasioned by the negligence of the crew. I am afraid of laying down any such rule; it will introduce an infinite number of questions as to the quantum of care which, if used, might have prevented the loss. Suppose, for instance, the master were to send a man to the mast-head to look out, and he falls asleep, in consequence of which the vessel runs upon a rock, or is taken by the enemy, in that case it might be argued, as here, that the loss was imputable to the negligence of one of the crew, and that the underwriters were not liable. These, and a variety of other such questions, would be introduced, in case our opinion were in favor of the underwriters." Walker v. Maitland, 5 B. & Ald. 171, 174, 175.
So in the recent case of North British Ins. Co. v. London, Liverpool & Globe Ins. Co., it was assumed, as unquestionable, that insurance obtained by a wharfinger would cover a loss by his own negligence. 5 Ch. D. 569, 584.
As the carrier might lawfully himself obtain insurance against the loss of the goods by the usual perils, though occasioned by his own negligence, he may lawfully stipulate with the owner to be allowed the benefit of insurance voluntarily obtained by the latter. This stipulation does not, in terms or in effect, prevent the owner from being reimbursed the full value of the goods; but being valid as between the owner and the carrier, it does prevent either the owner himself, or the insurer, who can only sue in his right, from maintaining an action against the carrier upon any terms inconsistent with this stipulation.
Nor does this conclusion impair any lawful rights of the *326 insurer. His right of subrogation, arising out of the contract of insurance and payment of the loss, is only to such rights as the assured has, by law or contract, against third persons. The policy containing no express stipulation upon the subject, and there being no evidence of any fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation by the owner in obtaining the insurance, the existence of the stipulation between the owner and the carrier would have afforded no defence to an action on the policy, according to two careful judgments rendered in June last and independently of each other, the one by the English Court of Appeal, and the other by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Tate v. Hyslop, 15 Q.B.D. 368; Jackson Co. v. Boylston Ins. Co., 139 Mass. 508.
In Tate v. Hyslop, owners of goods, insured against risks in crafts or lighters, had previously agreed with a lighterman that he should not be liable for any loss in crafts except loss caused by his own negligence, and did not disclose this agreement to the underwriters at the time of procuring the insurance. The sole ground on which it was held that the owners could not recover on the policy was that this agreement was material to the risk, because the underwriters, as the assured knew, had previously established two rates of premium, depending on the question whether they would have recourse over against the lighterman. Lord Justice Brett observed that, but for the two rates of premium established by the underwriters and known to the assured, the omission of the assured to disclose their agreement with the lighterman could only have affected the amount of salvage which the underwriters might have, and would have been immaterial to the risk, and consequently to the insurance. 15 Q.B.D. 375, 376.
In Jackson Co. v. Boylston Ins. Co., it was adjudged that, in the absence of any fraud or intentional concealment, the undisclosed existence of a stipulation between the assured and the carrier, like that now before us, afforded no defence to an action on the policy.
It may be added that our conclusion accords with the decision of Judge Shipman in Rintoul v. New York Central Railroad, 21 Blatchford, 439, as well as with those of Judge Dyer *327 in the District Court, and Judge Drummond in the Circuit Court, in the present case. 10 Bissell, 18, 38. See also Carstairs v. Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 473; The Sidney, 23 Fed. Rep. 88; Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Calebs, 20 N.Y. 173.
Decree affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY dissented. [See 118 U.S. 210.]


130 U.S. 327 (1889)
KNOWLTON
v.
WATERTOWN.
No. 198.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 13, 1889.
Decided April 8, 1889.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.
*328 Mr. George P. Miller for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. George W. Bird and Mr. Daniel Hall for defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit was brought to recover the amount of 6 bonds payable August 1st, 1863; 71 half-yearly coupons due from February 1, 1858, to August 1, 1863; 31 half-yearly coupons for $40 each, due from January 1, 1858, to January 1, 1873; and 31 other half-yearly coupons for $40 each, due from January 1, 1858, to January 1, 1873. A summons at the suit of Elijah W. Carpenter and Edwin F. Knowlton was issued on the 29th of March, 1873, and served by the marshal on the 2d day of April, 1873, upon the city clerk and the city treasurer, and upon Chris. Mayer, an alderman of the city who was elected mayor at the city election April 1, 1873, but not yet inducted into the office. The court, on motion, declared that the summons was not lawfully served, and made an order authorizing the clerk to return the summons to the marshal to be served on the defendant according to law or for such further action as the plaintiffs might direct.
Nothing more was done until the 9th of January, 1878, when the said Carpenter and Knowlton sued out an alias summons (so called), which was served by the marshal on the 23d of December, 1882, upon Rohr, the last mayor (but not then mayor); Bieber, city clerk; Gardner, city attorney; and Baxter, the last (but not then) president or chairman of the board of street commissioners. As Carpenter had died on the 1st of September, 1881, no further proceedings were had on this last attempt at service; but on the 19th of June, 1883, an order was applied for and made by the court that the cause be revived in favor of Edwin F. Knowlton as executor of Carpenter and said Knowlton individually. Thereupon the new plaintiffs filed their complaint and issued a new summons, tested 29th March, 1873, which was served by the marshal on the 26th of June, 1883, upon the city clerk, the city attorney, *329 and the last-elected chairman of the board of street commissioners. On the 14th of July, 1883, the defendant's attorneys entered an appearance to the action, and subsequently filed an answer, containing a general denial and a plea of the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs replied to this latter plea by amending their complaint, and setting up, as in the case of Amy et al. v. Watertown, No. 2, just decided, a conspiracy on the part of the officials and people of Watertown to prevent a service of process on the city, specifying the conduct of the mayor and aldermen in resigning their offices and meeting in secret for the transaction of business, etc. (See the report of the case referred to, ante, 320.) They added the following averment:
"Said plaintiffs further allege that in the above-entitled action said plaintiffs, on the 29th day of March, 1873, filed a præcipe for a summons and an undertaking for costs, and a summons was issued in due conformity to law and placed in the hands of the United States marshal for service, and that on April 2, 1873, the said marshal, after due and diligent search and inquiry, served the said summons on those persons whom, according to the best information he could derive, he had ascertained to be the mayor and city clerk of said city of Watertown, and on the same day returned the said summons as served according to law; that on April 22d, 1873, the said city of Watertown appeared specially in said action for the purpose of moving to set aside the service of said summons on the ground that the persons on whom the said summons had been served were not, in fact, the mayor and city clerk of said city; that on June 19, 1873, the said motion came on to be heard, and this court ordered that the service of said summons be set aside for the reason that the persons so served were not the mayor and city clerk of said city, and ordered that the said summons be returned to the marshal to be served according to law; that since said date the said marshal has not been able to ascertain who were the mayor and city clerk or mayor or city clerk of said city or the persons on whom process could be served.
"Said plaintiffs further allege that, notwithstanding they have exercised due diligence and hired attorneys and agents *330 for the purpose of having process served on said city, they have been unable to this date to serve or have served the summons in this action on the mayor of said city, or on that person who, by law, should exercise the functions of mayor of said city."
The defendant filed an answer and an amended answer to this amended complaint. The amended answer contains the following special rejoinder to the averment respecting the issuing and service of process in 1873:
"Fourth. And, further answering said amended complaint, this the said defendant alleges, that on or about the 29th day of March, 1873, the Elijah W. Carpenter and Edwin F. Knowlton named in said complaint filed with the clerk of this court a præcipe for a summons, wherein they were named as plaintiffs and this defendant was named defendant, and an undertaking for costs, and a summons, issued pursuant to said præcipe, was then placed in the hands of the United States marshal for said district for service, and that on or about the 2d day of April, 1873, said marshal returned said summons to this court with the following return of service thereon indorsed, to wit: `Served on the within-named The City of Watertown by delivering to August Tauck, city clerk, and Fred Meyer, city treasurer, of said city, and Chris. Meyer, an alderman from the first ward of said city and an acting member of the board of aldermen thereof, and mayor elect of said city at the city election held April 1, 1873, each a copy of the within summons this April 2, 1873, there being no other person acting as mayor of said city;' that on or about June 19, 1873, on motion of defendant, appearing specially for that purpose, the said pretended service of said summons was decided and held to be illegal and void by this court on the ground that said summons had not been served in the manner prescribed by law, and the same was then ordered to be returned to said marshal to be served according to law; and that said summons was not served upon this defendant at any time within sixty days after it was so as aforesaid placed in the hands of the said marshal for service, nor within sixty days after the said pretended service thereof was so decided and held by said *331 court to be illegal and void, and that the said summons was not and never has been at any time served upon said defendant, and no copy thereof has ever been delivered to or left with the mayor of said city, and that no action attempted to be commenced by the said summons or said pretended service thereof was at or before or since the time of the alleged decease of said Carpenter pending or existing in said court; that no other summons against this defendant, wherein said Carpenter and Knowlton were made plaintiffs, was ever issued out of said court or attempted to be issued on this defendant in or about the year 1873, and that the said summons is the identical and only summons against this defendant wherein said Carpenter and Knowlton were named as plaintiffs, mentioned or referred to in the said amended complaint. And this defendant, further answering, avers and alleges that this the first above-entitled action against this defendant was first commenced on or about and not before the 19th day of June, 1883, by said plaintiffs herein then or soon thereafter delivering the summons, wherein they are named as plaintiffs, in the above-entitled action, to the United States marshal of said district to be served, and that on or about the 26th day of June, 1883, the said marshal made the delivery of the copies thereof of which he made his return, indorsed upon said summons and which is now on file in this action, and that on the 16th day of July, 1883, this defendant duly appeared herein and thereafter submitted itself fully to the jurisdiction of this court, and, as this defendant is informed and believes, the said plaintiffs never attempted to commence this said action nor used any diligence to commence the same before said 19th day of June, 1883.
"Fifth. And this the said defendant, for a further and separate defence, which it will insist upon herein to this said action and to the whole thereof and to each and every cause of action set forth in said amended complaint, avers and alleges, that neither this said action nor any of the causes of action averred or set forth in said amended complaint accrued within the six years next before the 19th day of June, 1883, nor on nor since the day and year last aforesaid, and that on or after *332 and not before the said 19th day of June, 1883, the summons last above mentioned was first delivered to the United States marshal for service and to be served on this defendant, and that the same never was or had been delivered to such marshal nor to any officer or person for service or to be served on this defendant or otherwise before said 19th day of June, 1883; and this said defendant further avers and alleges that neither this said action nor any of the causes of action in the said amended complaint stated nor any part thereof accrued within six years before the commencement of this the above-entitled action, and that the said action was not commenced before the said 19th day of June, 1883, nor was it commenced within the six years limited by law for the commencement thereof after the same accrued, and is barred, the whole thereof, by the statute of limitations of the State of Wisconsin; that as to all the bonds, interest warrants, and coupons described in said complaint and as to each and every one of said bonds, interest warrants, and coupons the said defendant saith and avers that each and all of said several causes of action in said complaint stated did not nor did any or either of them accrue thereon within the six years next before the commencement of this action, and that this said action and the whole thereof and each and every part thereof is barred by the statute of limitations of the State of Wisconsin."
The plaintiff demurred to this amended answer, but the demurrer was overruled, and the plaintiffs having declined to plead further, judgment was given for the defendant.
It is plain from the description in the complaint of the securities sued on, that most of them had become barred by the statute of limitations before the first summons was sued out in March, 1873. Only the last six years of coupons, being two sets of $40 each, and amounting to $960, were not barred at that time. Of course all the bonds and coupons were barred in June, 1883, when the last summons was issued, unless some cause existed for suspending or avoiding the operation of the statute. The plaintiffs relied on two grounds for this purpose: first, the impediments thrown in the way of the service of process by the defendant and its officers; secondly, the *333 actual commencement of an action in 1873 and keeping it on foot until the final service of process in 1883.
The first of these grounds was considered and held to be insufficient in the case of Amy v. Watertown, (No. 2,) just decided, ante, 320. The second does not require an elaborate examination. Without stopping to inquire whether the process issued in 1873 could be kept on foot for five or ten years without any legal service, and without complying with the statute provided for in such cases, it is enough to say, that, by the laws of Wisconsin, an action is not commenced for the purpose of stopping the running of the statute of limitations until service of process has been effected, or until service has been attempted and followed up by actual service within sixty days or publication within that time. The text of the law on this subject is found in §§ 4239 and 4240 of the Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, published in 1878. The prior edition of 1858 contained substantially the same provisions. See Rev. Stat. Wis. 1858, 822. The sections referred to are as follows:
"Section 4239. An action shall be deemed commenced, within the meaning of any provision of law which limits the time for the commencement of an action, as to each defendant when the summons is served on him, or on a co-defendant who is a joint contractor or otherwise united in interest with him.
"Section 4240. An attempt to commence an action shall be deemed equivalent to the commencement thereof, within the meaning of any provision of law, which limits the time for the commencement of an action, when the summons is delivered, with the intent that it shall be actually served, to the sheriff or other proper officer of the county in which the defendants, or one of them, usually or last resided; or if a corporation organized under the laws of this State be defendant, to the sheriff or the proper officer of the county in which it was established by law, or where its general business is transacted, or where it keeps an office for the transaction of business, or wherein any officer, attorney, agent or other person upon whom the summons may by law be served, resides or has his office; or if such corporation has no such place of *334 business, or any officer or other person upon whom the summons may by law be served, known to the plaintiff, or if such defendant be a non-resident, or a non-resident corporation, to the sheriff or other proper officer of the county in which plaintiff shall bring his action. But such an attempt must be followed by the first publication of the summons, or the service thereof within sixty days. If the action be in a court not of record, the service thereof must be made with due diligence."
Now, it is clear from what was said in the case of Amy v. Watertown, (No. 1,) ante, 301, that there was never any legal service of process upon the defendant in this case. The summons was never served upon the mayor of the city, or upon any person having or exercising the powers of mayor, and there is no pretence that the directions of § 4240 were followed or attempted to be. The action was really not commenced within the meaning of the statute until the attorneys of the defendant voluntarily entered a general appearance. This was done on the 14th of July, 1883. At that time more than ten years and a half had elapsed since the last coupon sued on became due.
We have no hesitation, therefore, in saying, that the court below committed no error in overruling the plaintiffs' demurrer and giving judgment for the defendant. That judgment is
Affirmed.


21 U.S. 253 (____)
8 Wheat. 253
THE UNITED STATES
v.
WILSON.
Supreme Court of United States.

*254 The cause was briefly argued by the Attorney General for the United States,[b] and by Mr. Wheaton,[c] for the defendant.
*255 CERTIFICATE. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the United States Court for the second circuit, and southern District of New-York, on the question on which the Judges of that Court were divided, and which was certified to this Court. On consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion, that the said Joseph Wilson, who was in execution under a judgment obtained *256 by the United States, is not entitled to a discharge of his person under the act of the State of New-York, entitled, "an act abolishing imprisonment for debt," passed April, 1819. All which is directed to be certified to the Circuit Court for the second circuit and southern District of New-York.[a]
NOTES
[b]  He referred to the act of Congress of June 6th, 1798, c. 66. s. 1. which provides, "that any person imprisoned upon execution issuing from any Court of the United States, for a debt due to the United States, which he shall be unable to pay, may, at any time after commitment, make application in writing to the Secretary of the Treasury, stating the circumstances of his case, and his inability to discharge the debt; and it shall, thereupon, be lawful for the said Secretary to make, or require to be made, an examination and inquiry into the circumstances of the debtor, either by the oath or affirmation of the debtor, (which the said Secretary, or any other person by him specially appointed, are hereby authorized to administer,) or otherwise, as the said Secretary shall deem necessary and expedient, to ascertain the truth; and upon proof being made, to his satisfaction, that such debtor is unable to pay the debt for which he is imprisoned, and that he hath not concealed, or made any conveyance of his estate, in trust, for himself, or with an intent to defraud the United States, or deprive them of their legal priority, the said Secretary is hereby authorized to receive from such debtor, any deed, assignment, or conveyance, of the real or personal estate of such debtor, if any he hath, or any collateral security, to the use of the United States; and upon a compliance, by the debtor, with such terms and conditions as the said Secretary may judge reasonable and proper, under all the circumstances of the case, it shall be lawful for the said Secretary to issue his order, under his hand, to the keeper of the prison, directing him to discharge such debtor from his imprisonment under such execution, and he shall be accordingly discharged, and shall not be liable to be imprisoned again for the said debt; but the judgment shall remain good and sufficient in law, and may be satisfied out of any estate which may then, or at any time afterwards, belong to the debtor."
[c]  He cited Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. Rep. 136. Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. Rep. 1. and referred to the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20. s. 34.; the Bankrupt Act of 1800, c. 173. s. 61. and the Priority Act of 1799, c. 128. s. 65.
[a]  See the United States v. Hoar, 2 Mason's Rep. 311. where it was determined, that the local statutes of limitations of the different States do not bind the United States in suits in the national Courts, and cannot be pleaded in bar of an action by the United States against individuals. In that case it was held, that the statutes of limitation of Massachusetts did not apply even to suits by the State government in the State Courts, and that the 34th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20. which provides, "that the laws of the several States, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the Courts of the United States, in cases where they apply," could not have meant to enlarge the construction of the statute of Massachusetts. "It is most manifest," (says Mr. Justice STORY, in delivering the judgment of the Circuit Court in the case referred to,) "that these terms give the same efficacy, and none other, to those statutes, in the federal, that they have (proprio vigore) in the State Courts. And yet, unless this doctrine of enlargement can be maintained, it is difficult to perceive on what ground the case of the defendant can be supported. The statutes of Massachusetts could not originally have contemplated suits by the United States, not because they were in substance enacted before the federal constitution was adopted, on which I lay no stress; but because it was not within the legitimate exercise of the powers of the State legislature. It is not to be presumed, that a State legislature mean to transcend their constitutional powers; and, therefore, however general the words may be, they are always restrained to persons and things over which the jurisdiction of the State may be rightfully exerted. And if a construction could ever be justified, which should include the United States, at the same time that it excluded the State, it is not to be presumed that Congress could intend to sanction a usurpation of power by a State, to regulate and control the rights of the United States. In the language of the act of 1789, it could not be a case where the laws of the State could apply. The mischiefs, too, of such a construction, would be very great. The public rights, revenue, and property, would be subject to the arbitrary limitations of the States; and the limitations are so various in these States, that the government would hold its rights by a different tenure in each." Id. p. 315.


141 U.S. 543 (1891)
OLCOTT
v.
HEADRICK.
No. 77.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued and submitted November 5, 1891.
Decided November 16, 1891.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.
Mr. William M. Baxter for appellants submitted on his brief.
Mr. Henry H. Ingersoll for appellee.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.
A bill in equity was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee, by the Central Trust Company of New York against the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company, the Tennessee State Line Railroad Company and one Thomas, to foreclose a mortgage given June 15, 1881, by the first named railroad company to the Trust Company, on its property situated in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. On the 6th of January, 1885, one Fink was appointed receiver in the cause, and placed *544 in possession of the whole of the property of the railroad company.
On the 18th of March, 1886, a decree of foreclosure and sale was entered. That decree contained the following provisions: "And the purchaser or purchasers of said property at said sale shall, as a part of the consideration of the purchase and in addition to the sum bid, take the said property upon the express condition that he or they will pay off, satisfy and discharge any and all claims now pending and undetermined in either of said courts, accruing prior to the appointment of the receiver herein or during the receivership, which may be allowed and adjudged by this court as prior in right to said respective mortgages, together with such interest as may be allowed, except as to mortgages prior to said mortgages foreclosed in this suit, and subject to which said property shall be sold; and also upon the further express conditions that he or they will pay off, satisfy and discharge all debts, claims and demands, of whatsoever nature, incurred or which may hereafter be incurred by said receiver, Henry Fink, and which have not been or shall not hereafter be paid by said receiver or other parties in interest herein; and said purchaser or purchasers, their successor or successors or assigns, shall have the right to appear and make defence to any claim, debt or demand sought to be enforced against said property; and said purchaser or purchasers, their successor or successors or assigns, shall also have the right to enter appearance in this or any other court and contest any claim or demand pending and undetermined at the date of the confirmation of such sale. All claims, debts and demands accruing during the receivership herein shall be barred, unless presented, as herein provided, within six months after the confirmation of said sale; and jurisdiction of this cause is retained by this court for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this article of this decree."
A supplemental decree was made April 26, 1886, and a special master, on the 25th of May, 1886, sold the property at public auction to Frederick P. Olcott and others, the appellants herein, for $10,250,000. The master reported the sale to the court, and a decree confirming it was made June 28, 1886. That *545 decree recited that the plaintiff had applied for the confirmation of the sale, that the sale had been made to Olcott and others, acting as a committee on the part of the bondholders, as purchasing trustees, that no exceptions to the report of the sale had been filed, and sufficient notice of the hearing of the application had been given to the solicitors of the parties to the cause; and the decree went on to confirm the sale and the report of sale, and to provide that the special master should execute a proper instrument in writing, conveying to the purchasers, as a committee acting on behalf of the bondholders, as purchasing trustees, all the property described in the decree of sale, and further provided as follows: "And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said purchasers shall take the said property, and that it be recited in said deed that they do take the said property, subject to, and that the said purchasers assume and pay off, any and all debts, claims and demands of whatsoever nature now pending and undetermined in either of the courts in which the original and ancillary bills in this cause are pending which may be allowed and adjudged by this court, or either of said courts where ancillary bills are pending, as prior to any right secured under said consolidated first mortgage, under foreclosure of which the said sale was made, and subject-likewise to all debts, claims and demands of whatsoever nature incurred by Henry Fink, as receiver in this cause, and which may remain unpaid at the termination of said Fink's receivership." It does not appear by the record whether such deed was given; but it is to be presumed that it was.
On the 2d of March, 1887, an intervening petition was filed in the cause by O.B. Headrick, the appellee herein, alleging that he, on March 30, 1886, as a passenger upon one of the trains of the railroad operated by the receiver, had been seriously injured and permanently disabled, by reason of a collision which occurred on the road, without fault on his part, but through the negligence of the agents and employés of the receiver; and he prayed for a judgment for damages for such injuries, and that the same might be paid out of one or the other of the following funds, alleged to be in the custody of *546 the court and still undistributed: "1st. The fund resulting from the operation of the road by the receiver and hitherto unappropriated. 2d. The funds hitherto in the hands of the receiver, which have been by him diverted from the expenses of the receivership and appropriated to the payment of the bonded indebtedness of the railroad company, defendant, and to the purchase of rolling stock for, and the permanent improvement of, said railroad property. 3d. The funds resulting from the operation of said railroad by said receiver, which were turned over to the purchasers of said railroad under the sale ordered thereof by this court in this cause. 4th. The obligation of the purchasers to pay for and discharge all the liabilities and obligations of the receiver, on all accounts, as a part of the terms of their purchase of the property."
To this petition it was answered, as a defence, that the petitioner's right of action, if any, was barred by the provisions of the decree of sale and the decree of confirmation, because the petition was not filed until after the lapse of six months after the decree was made confirming the sale. It was, in fact, filed more than eight months thereafter.
On the hearing of the petition by the Circuit Court, held by the circuit judge (Judge Jackson) and the district judge, (Judge Key,) their opinions were opposed on the following questions: "1st. Whether or not the petitioner was entitled to file said petition in said cause after the lapse of more than six (6) months after the entry of the decree confirming sale. 2d. Whether or not, under the decrees of sale, and confirmation of sale, plaintiff's action was barred. 3d. Whether or not the purchasers of the property were liable for any claim against the receiver presented to the court more than six (6) months after the decree of confirmation of the sale." The opinion of the circuit judge was in favor of the petitioner, and judgment was entered accordingly; and the foregoing questions were certified to this court. The judgment was for $500 in favor of the petitioner, with costs, and against the receiver, but the judgment stated that, as the receiver had been discharged from further liability, and the purchasers took the property subject to, and assumed to pay, any and all claims *547 and demands of whatsoever nature, incurred by the receiver, it was adjudged that the purchasers pay the 8500, and costs, to the petitioner.
We are of opinion that the first and third questions must be answered in the affirmative, and the second question in the negative; and that the judgment must be affirmed.
Although the decree of sale provided that all claims, debts, and demands accruing during the receivership should be barred unless presented within six months after the confirmation of the sale, yet the decree of confirmation provided that the purchasers should take the property, and that the deed should recite that they took it, subject to all debts, claims and demands, of whatsoever nature, incurred by the receiver, and which might remain unpaid at the termination of his receivership. It does not appear that the purchasers objected to the terms of the decree of confirmation, or appealed to this court from that decree. They might have done both, on the ground that the decree of confirmation varied from the terms of the decree of sale under which they had bought, in destroying the six months' limitation. It was uncertain, under the terms of the decree of sale, what claims might be presented within six months after the confirmation of the sale and be allowed by the court; and, as they became parties to the proceeding by their purchase, they should have seen to it that the terms of the decree of confirmation did not create still further uncertainty, by destroying the six months' limitation. The time of the confirmation of the sale was uncertain, and, inasmuch as the six months, by the decree of March 18, 1886, was to run from the confirmation of the sale, the purchasers were put upon inquiry to see that the term of six months was not varied by the decree of confirmation.
If the purchasers had objected to the decree of confirmation because it destroyed the six months' limitation, they could either have asked the court not to insert such a provision, and, on its refusal, have appealed to this court, or have declined to be bound by the sale, on the ground that the new terms varied from those contained in the decree of sale.
It was within the discretion of the court to abrogate the six *548 months' limitation, the fund being substantially a fund in court. Brooks v. Gibbons, 4 Paige, 374; Burchard v. Phillips, 11 Paige, 70; Grinnell v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 1 C.E. Green (16 N.J. Eq.), 283; Lashley v. Hogg, 11 Vesey, 602; Hurley v. Murrell, 2 Tenn. Ch. 620. That being so, as the record does not show on what grounds the court acted, the presumption must be that it properly exercised its discretion.
The first and third questions are answered in the affirmative, and the second question in the negative, and the judgment is
Affirmed.