Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-04-06
PORTION OF IOWA pEcREEp BY
COURT TO LIE WEST OF
ERRArIc MISSOURI.
WOODBURY. COUNTY LARGER
BY 1000 OR MORE ACRES
Supreme Court Of Nebraska Holds
Boundary Lines Do Not Change With
Shifting Of Course Of Border Stream
Officials Must Cross River to Levy
Assessments.

Sioux City. April s.-woodbury
county, under a final ruling by the SUI
preme court of the state of Nebra ska,
now is divided by the Missouri river.
Part Of the county lies east of the
river, and part Of it lies west of the
river. Several farms, aggregating 1000
acres, located on the Nebraska side
of the Missouri river near Sergeant
Bluffs, have been added by the Ne
braska courts decision TO the state of
Iowa and the county of Woodbury..
In order to assess and perform the
other taxing duties against the coun-
tvs new trans Missouri possessions, it
VIII be necessary for the authorities to
cross the river and pass thru Nebraska
territory. Unless, of course, the county
should decide TO connect it's two seq
ments by a gigantic bridge at Scar
geant Bluffs.
The court decision which has
brought about this situation was hand
ed down in the case of O'Connor
against Petty. Litigation in connec-
ton with the case has been in pro-
gress in Iowa and Nebraska court over
ten years.
History of Case.
History of the case dates back to
1894. Even before that year, during
a long period of time, the Missour.
river had been eating away farm land
from the Nebraska side and depositing
1t as "accretion land on the Iowa side.
in this manner about 1000 acres of
fertile farm land was built up in Iowa.
and was improved by Iowa farmers.
The shape Of the tract was that of a
protuberance from the Iowa shore line
But in 1894, by one Of its sudden
whinls, the Missouri river tried to I'M
do all 1t had done. The river channel,
instead Of flowing around the protu-
berance Of land it had built up. cut
squarely thru the neck Of it. That
threw the farms in question to the Ne
braska side of the river and became
the basis for ownership claims by
farmers along the Nebraska shore.
c. J. CConnor and Tim OConnor,
OF Homer, Neb., owned the farms along
the river in Nebraska The river had
eaten away much of their land to build
the new farms In Iowa. When, there
fore the river apparently tried to re-
store what Il had stolen, the O'Connors
were willing. They laid claim to the
whole Iowa tract as being accretion 70
the Nebraska side. Suit was started
in the district court at Sioux City
against grantees Of L NJ. Brown. Mr..
Brown was principal owner Of the land
during its visit" IN Iowa. His grantees
were W. W. Stevens. Frank Malloy,
Leary P. Hall. Eugene Purdy and
about fifty others. They were defend
ants in the suits,
Land Belongs to Iowa.
Two decisions in the Iowa courts IA
vored the defendants. E. ]. Stason
represented the defense. Then the
scene OF litigation shifted. Attorney
A. Van Wasenen, for the O'Connors,
started suit in the Dakota county. Neb,
district court before Judge Guy T.
Graves. The decision was in favor Of
the OConnors. Appeal was taken to
the supreme court. That court now
has reversed the finding Of the dis
tric. court, and has dismissed the ac-
ton, 10 boot.
Dismissal Of the case was on the
ground that the land in question still
is part Of the state OF Iowa and that,
therefore, the Nebraska courts have no
jurisdiction.
The old Missouri river channel. not
the new one established in 1891, is the
state line, according to the courts rul-
ing. it is stated. If the river had
moved the Brown tract back to Ne
hrasia by the slow process Of accre-
ton title would have gone to the Ne
hraska land owners whose acreage was
increased. But a sudden cutting such
as that of 1894 can not De considered
as accretion. 1t Is held