Supreme Court of the United States

Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co.

173 U.S. 179 · 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1427 · 19 S. Ct. 316 · 43 L. Ed. 658

February 20, 1899 · Docket 14

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~144 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
33.19.9 Environmental and Natural Resource Law > Water Resources and Wetlands Law > Riparian Rights Law
The Court explained that questions concerning the division of the Fox River after it leaves the dam and enters a non‑navigable stretch are beyond its authority and must be decided by the courts of the State.
Headnote 2
33.19 Environmental and Natural Resource Law > Water Resources and Wetlands Law
The opinion states that the decision was intended solely to protect the Canal Company’s rights to the extra water created by the improvement, not to resolve riparian controversies.
Headnote 3
33.19.9 Environmental and Natural Resource Law > Water Resources and Wetlands Law > Riparian Rights Law
The Court emphasized that while state courts may handle riparian disputes, the United States will not intervene in water‑power uses except when required to manage the surplus water created by the dam and canal.
Headnote 4
The petition for rehearing was rejected because it sought review of jurisdiction‑free questions; the Court therefore limited itself to the issues it could properly decide.
Headnote 5
33.19.9 Environmental and Natural Resource Law > Water Resources and Wetlands Law > Riparian Rights Law
The Court noted concern that its ruling should not be construed to injure parties using water powers at other locations along the river who were not represented in the case.

Opinion

Me. Justice Shieas Justice Shieas

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition, by the defendants in error, for a rehearing of the case of Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co. and others, decided at the present term, and reported in 172 U. S. 58.

The reasons set forth in the petition ■ and accompanying brief seem to go upon a misapprehension of the scope, and meaning of the decision of this court.

Thus it is made matter of complaint that this court did not deal with questions concerning the division of the waters of Fox Eiver after they had spent the force or head given them by the dam and canal, and had passed into a non-navigable portion of the stream below the improvement; and it is suggested that we overlooked the fact that a private dam had been constructed between islands three and four.

But those are questions to which the jurisdiction of this court doés not extend, and hence could not be considered by us. The purport of our decision was to preserve to the Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company the use of the surplus waters created by the dam and canal. After such waters had flowed ovér the dam and through the sluices, and had found their way into the unimproved bed of the stream, the rights and disputes of the riparian owners must be determined by the state courts.

Again, apprehensions are expressed lest the decision in the present case may be construed so as to injure parties using water powers at other places in the river, and who are not represented in the present controversy.

We are not ready to' presume that the authorities of the United States will either permit or make changes in the places where the surplus waters are to be used by the Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company, so as to deprive other parties of the water powers they have been using for so many years, unless such changes are found to be necessary and proper in the regulation and delivery of the surplus waters created by the public improvement. But such, questions are not now before us.

While the courts of the State may legitimately take cognizance of controversies between the riparian owners, concerning the use and apportionment of the waters flowing in the non-navigable parts of the stream, they cannot interfere by mandatory injunction or otherwise with the control of the surplus water power incidentally created by the dam and canal now owned and operated by the United States.

The petition for a rehearing is

Denied.

Case brief

Citation data as of July 24, 2026

Summary

The Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company, which owned a public dam and canal on the Fox River, claimed the right to use the “surplus waters” created by that improvement, while Patten Paper Company and other private riparian owners argued that the allocation of those waters after they passed over the dam and entered the non‐navigable downstream reaches infringed their riparian rights. The United States Supreme Court, in its first opinion (172 U.S. 58), held that the Canal Company may retain the use of the surplus waters but expressly limited its decision to that issue, directing that any dispute over the apportionment of water in the non‐navigable portion of the river must be resolved by the state courts. The defendants‐in‐error sought rehearing, contending that the Court had failed to address the downstream division of water and the existence of a private dam between islands 3 and 4. The Supreme Court denied the petition, emphasizing that those questions lie outside its jurisdiction and therefore belong to state tribunals. No lower‐court proceedings, specific relief sought, or detailed defenses are recorded in the opinion, and no separate concurring or dissenting opinions were filed. Consequently, the Canal Company’s right to the surplus waters remains intact, while all remaining riparian‐rights controversies are to be litigated in state court.

Updated July 24, 2026

Statement of Facts

The dispute arose between the Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company, the owner and operator of a public dam and canal on the Fox River, and Patten Paper Company together with other private parties who owned riparian land along the same waterway. The Canal Company had constructed a dam and canal that created “surplus waters” which, after passing over the dam and through its sluices, entered the unimproved, non‐navigable portion of the stream downstream. The private parties, including Patten Paper Co., asserted that the allocation of those surplus waters—and the division of the river’s flow after it left the improved section—impinged upon their riparian rights. The United States Supreme Court, in its earlier decision reported at 172 U.S. 58, held that the Canal Company was entitled to retain the use of the surplus waters created by the public improvement, while any disputes concerning the apportionment of water in the non‐navigable reaches were to be resolved by the state courts. The defendants‐in‐error subsequently filed a petition for rehearing, contending that the Court had misapprehended the scope of its decision by failing to address (1) the division of water after it had passed the dam and entered the non‐navigable section, and (2) the existence of a private dam situated between islands three and four. The Supreme Court denied the petition, emphasizing that such matters lie outside its jurisdiction and must be adjudicated by state tribunals. The original cause of action concerned the Canal Company’s right to use the surplus water power generated by its dam and canal, and the defendants’ claim that such use infringed upon their riparian rights. The plaintiff sought an order preserving its entitlement to the surplus waters; the defendants sought relief that would limit or prohibit the Canal Company’s use of those waters and address the allocation of flow in the downstream, non‐navigable portions of the river. The petition for rehearing raised the defenses that the issues presented were matters of state law concerning riparian rights and that the Court lacked authority to issue mandatory injunctions affecting private water‐power users. The Supreme Court’s denial of rehearing left the original allocation of surplus waters to the Canal Company intact and directed the parties to pursue any further riparian disputes in state court. Where the opinion does not specify the precise cause of action, the exact relief sought, or the full content of the defendants’ defenses, the brief notes that the record is silent on those details.

Updated July 24, 2026

Procedural History

United States Supreme Court (first decision, reported at 172 U.S. 58).
– The Court ruled that the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company may retain the use of the “surplus waters” generated by its public dam and canal. It expressly limited its holding to that issue and held that any disputes concerning the apportionment of water in the non‐navigable reaches downstream must be resolved by the state courts. No monetary damages or other specific relief (e.g., injunctions against the Canal Company) were mentioned in the opinion.

Petition for rehearing (Supreme Court, same term).
– The defendants‐in‐error (Patten Paper Co. and other riparian owners) filed a petition for rehearing, contending that the Court had mis‐apprehended its earlier decision by (a) failing to address the division of water after it passed the dam into the non‐navigable section, and (b) overlooking a private dam situated between islands 3 and 4. The Supreme Court denied the petition, reiterating that those questions lie outside its jurisdiction and must be litigated in state court.

Notes on the record

The opinion provides no detail about the trial‐court or any intermediate appellate court that preceded the Supreme Court’s first decision; consequently, the lower‐court rulings, any monetary award, or the precise procedural posture before the Supreme Court are not stated in the opinion.

Accordingly, the procedural history is limited to the Supreme Court’s original ruling and the subsequent denied petition for rehearing; any earlier procedural steps remain ambiguous or omitted.

Updated July 24, 2026

Issues

I. Substantive Issue
1. Jurisdiction over downstream riparian disputes – Does the United States Supreme Court have authority to decide the apportionment of water in the non‐navigable portion of the Fox River after it passes the public dam and canal, or must such riparian‐rights questions be resolved exclusively by the state courts? II. Procedural Issue
1. Denial of rehearing on jurisdictional grounds – Did the Court err in denying the petition for rehearing by concluding that the questions raised (the division of downstream waters and the existence of a private dam) lie outside its jurisdiction, thereby improperly refusing to review the lower‐court determination?

Updated July 24, 2026

Judgment

The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing, thereby leaving its earlier order granting the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company the right to retain the surplus waters and directing that any downstream riparian‐rights disputes be resolved by the state courts.

Updated July 24, 2026

Holding

Jurisdiction over downstream riparian‐rights disputes
The United States Supreme Court has no authority to decide the apportionment of water in the non‐navigable reaches of a river after the water has passed a public dam or canal; those riparian‐rights questions are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state courts.

Denial of rehearing on jurisdictional grounds
A petition for rehearing may be properly denied when the matters raised fall outside the Court’s jurisdiction, and the Court’s prior decision was confined to the issues that lie within its constitutional authority.

Updated July 24, 2026

Rule of Law

Federal‐court jurisdiction limitation over state‐law riparian disputes.
The United States Supreme Court holds that “the jurisdiction of this court does not extend” to questions concerning the division or apportionment of water in the non‐navigable portion of a stream after it has passed a public dam and canal; such riparian‐rights controversies are “to be determined by the state courts.” Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U.S. 58, 190 (1900) (opinion of the Court).

Federal‐court authority confined to federal interests in surplus water created by a public improvement.
The Court may preserve to the United States‐owned Canal Company “the use of the surplus waters created by the dam and canal,” but it will not interfere with state‐law water‐power uses “unless such changes are found to be necessary and proper in the regulation and delivery of the surplus waters created by the public improvement.” Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U.S. 58, 190 (1900).

State courts retain exclusive power to adjudicate riparian‐owner controversies in non‐navigable waters.
“The courts of the State may legitimately take cognizance of controversies between the riparian owners, concerning the use and apportionment of the waters flowing in the non‐navigable parts of the stream,” and they “cannot interfere ... with the control of the surplus water power incidentally created by the dam and canal now owned and operated by the United States.” Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U.S. 58, 190 (1900).

Updated July 24, 2026

Reasoning

The Court first identified the governing rule that the federal judiciary may adjudicate only those questions that arise under the Constitution, federal statutes, or treaties, and that pure state‐law disputes—such as the apportionment of water in non‐navigable streams between private riparian owners—lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state courts.

Applying that rule, the Court examined the factual context: the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company owned a public dam and canal that generated “surplus waters.” The dispute presented by the defendants concerned how those surplus waters, after flowing over the dam and through the sluices, were divided among riparian landowners in the downstream, non‐navigable portion of the Fox River.

The Court concluded that the portion of the controversy dealing with the surplus water itself fell within its limited federal interest—namely, preserving the Canal Company’s right to use the water power created by a public improvement—but that any question about the subsequent division of that water among private owners was a matter of state‐law riparian rights.

To avoid overstepping its constitutional authority, the Court emphasized that it could not entertain claims that would require it to allocate water, enforce injunctions, or otherwise regulate the use of water in the non‐navigable reaches, because such regulation is traditionally the province of state courts.

The Court further invoked policy considerations: allowing the federal courts to intervene in downstream riparian allocations could “injure parties using water powers at other places in the river” and would disrupt the settled state‐law framework governing water‐power users who have long‐standing rights.

The opinion distinguished any potential claim that the United States might alter the Canal Company’s use of surplus water; it held that such a change could be entertained only if it were “necessary and proper in the regulation and delivery of the surplus waters created by the public improvement,” a question the Court expressly noted was not before it.

Because the petition for rehearing raised only the two issues the Court had already deemed outside its jurisdiction—the downstream division of water and the existence of a private dam—the Court logically inferred that there was no basis for revisiting its earlier order, and therefore it properly denied the petition.

The final logical inference was that the Supreme Court’s earlier holding—preserving the Canal Company’s use of the surplus waters—remains effective, while all remaining riparian‐rights controversies must be resolved by the appropriate state tribunals, consistent with the jurisdictional limitation articulated in step 1.

Updated July 24, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Authoring Justice: None – no separate concurring or dissenting opinions were filed.
Type of Opinion: None – the Court issued a single opinion authored by Justice Shieas with no additional opinions.
Summary of Reasoning: The opinion contains only the majority’s reasoning that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the downstream riparian‐rights questions and therefore properly denied the petition for rehearing; no justice authored a separate concurrence or dissent.

Updated July 24, 2026

Case Relevance

Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co. is authoritative for the principle that federal courts—including the United States Supreme Court—lack jurisdiction to adjudicate pure state‐law riparian‐rights disputes concerning the apportionment of water in non‐navigable reaches of a river after it passes a public dam or canal, limiting their authority to the narrow federal interest of preserving a federally‐owned improvement’s “surplus waters” (Issue I resolved by Holding 1); consequently, any downstream allocation controversy must be decided by state courts, a rule that applies whenever the contested water‐use occurs outside the navigable‐water domain and does not involve a necessary‐and‐proper federal regulation of the surplus water itself (Scope — facts‐specific to non‐navigable, post‐dam waters but articulated as a general jurisdictional limitation). The decision is therefore a go‐to authority for motions to dismiss or for jurisdictional challenges in federal litigation involving state‐law water‐rights, for arguments that a federal court’s jurisdiction ends at the point of a public improvement, and for supporting a denial of rehearing when the raised issues remain outside federal jurisdiction; it does not, however, resolve how state courts must allocate such waters, nor does it address federal questions that might arise if the surplus water’s regulation were deemed “necessary and proper,” leaving those substantive riparian questions to state law.

Updated July 24, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "But those are questions to which the jurisdiction of this court does not extend, and hence could not be considered by us."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 172 U.S. 58, ___ (1900) (pinpoint page not determinable from the provided text)
Explanation: This sentence states the Court’s core jurisdictional rule: pure riparian‐rights disputes concerning downstream, non‐navigable waters lie outside federal jurisdiction and therefore cannot be decided by the Supreme Court.

Quoted text: "The purport of our decision was to preserve to the Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company the use of the surplus waters created by the dam and canal."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 172 U.S. 58, ___ (1900) (pinpoint page not determinable from the provided text)
Explanation: The Court limits its federal interest to protecting the “surplus waters” generated by the public improvement, indicating that its authority does not extend to allocating those waters among private riparian owners.

Quoted text: "After such waters had flowed over the dam and through the sluices, and had found their way into the unimproved bed of the stream, the rights and disputes of the riparian owners must be determined by the state courts."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 172 U.S. 58, ___ (1900) (pinpoint page not determinable from the provided text)
Explanation: This passage expressly directs that once surplus water enters the non‐navigable reach, any ensuing riparian‐owner controversies are to be resolved by state courts, reinforcing the jurisdictional boundary.

Quoted text: "While the courts of the State may legitimately take cognizance of controversies between the riparian owners, concerning the use and apportionment of the waters flowing in the non‐navigable parts of the stream, they cannot interfere by mandatory injunction or otherwise with the control of the surplus water power incidentally created by the dam and canal now owned and operated by the United States."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 172 U.S. 58, ___ (1900) (pinpoint page not determinable from the provided text)
Explanation: The Court acknowledges state‐court competence over riparian allocation while reserving the federal interest in the surplus water power, clarifying the division of authority between state and federal courts.

Quoted text: "We are not ready to presume that the authorities of the United States will either permit or make changes in the places where the surplus waters are to be used by the Green Bay and Mississippi Canal Company, so as to deprive other parties of the water powers they have been using for so many years, unless such changes are found to be necessary and proper in the regulation and delivery of the surplus waters created by the public improvement. But such, questions are not now before us."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 172 U.S. 58, ___ (1900) (pinpoint page not determinable from the provided text)
Explanation: This language limits the Court’s review to matters that are “necessary and proper” to the regulation of the surplus water; because the petition raised only downstream allocation issues, the Court correctly denied rehearing.

Updated July 24, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co. · 172 U.S. 58 (1900)

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co.
172 U.S. 58 · 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1641 · 19 S. Ct. 97 · 43 L. Ed. 364
Patten Paper Co. v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.
1896 Wisc. LEXIS 5 · 66 N.W. 601 · 93 Wis. 283
Patten Paper Co. v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.
104 Wis. 24 · 1899 Wisc. LEXIS 335 · 83 N.W. 1119
Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Telulah Paper Co.
122 N.W. 1062 · 140 Wis. 417 · 1909 Wisc. LEXIS 296
Wells v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.
1895 Wisc. LEXIS 315 · 64 N.W. 69 · 90 Wis. 442
Arimond v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.
35 Wis. 41

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

February 20, 1899

Docket

Precedential status

Published

Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co.

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion