Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Company

Supreme Court of the United States · 1829 · Constitutional Law

27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 245 (1829)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseSupreme Court appellate jurisdictiondormant commercestate police powernavigationstate statutefederal preemption

Facts

The plaintiffs claimed a right, created entirely by a Delaware act of assembly, to build and maintain a dam across Black Bird Creek. The plea admitted the existence of the act but denied that it could authorize a dam across a navigable tidal creek that functioned as a common and public way. The creek was described as one of many small tidal creeks running through deep marsh adjoining the Delaware. The challenged state measure blocked the creek, thereby abridging the prior use of those accustomed to navigate it.

Issue

Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction where the record did not expressly state that the constitutionality of the Delaware act was challenged, but the pleadings necessarily placed that question in issue? If so, was the Delaware act authorizing a dam across a navigable tidal creek invalid because it conflicted with Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states?

Rule

Supreme Court jurisdiction exists under section 25 when the record shows that the constitutionality of a state law was necessarily questioned and the state court decision was in favor of the party claiming under that law, even if the record does not state that issue in express terms. A state law affecting a small navigable tidal creek is not void solely because of the dormant federal commerce power when Congress has enacted no conflicting commerce legislation and the state measure, under the circumstances, is not considered repugnant to that power.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A Florida statute authorizes Gulf Reed Drainage Company to build a barrier across a tidal inlet near Pensacola to drain surrounding marsh. In state court, the company sues Nolan Pierce for cutting the barrier, and Pierce's only defense admits the statute exists but argues it cannot lawfully authorize blocking a navigable public waterway; the Florida Supreme Court rules for the company.

If Pierce seeks Supreme Court review, is the Court most likely to find appellate jurisdiction?

Explanation. Jurisdiction is proper when the record shows that the constitutionality of a state law was necessarily questioned and the decision below favored the party claiming under that law. Here, the company's right depends entirely on the Florida statute, and Pierce's defense challenges the statute's legal capacity to authorize the obstruction. Under the majority's reasoning, express constitutional phrasing is unnecessary when the issue necessarily appears from the pleadings.