Eichelberger, 51 Ohio St. 216, 38 N. E. 208, holding ignorance of rights arising from residence abroad does affect running of statute; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Spates, 41 W. Va. 32, 36, 56 Am. St. Rep. 832, 835, 23 S. E. 683, 685, holding parties by seclusion from means of information cannot claim exemption from statutes of limitation; Lafferty v. Lafferty, 42 W. Va. 792, 26 S. E. 265, affirming rule where complainant had means of knowledge. See note in 55 Am. St. Rep. 519, on ignorance of rights as ground for relief.

Courts. Alterations in jurisdiction of State courts cannot affect equitable jurisdiction of Federal Circuit Courts sitting in such States, while the equitable rights themselves remain, p. 520.

Cited and relied upon in Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 152, 34 L. 875, 11 S. Ct. 277, holding State statute cannot confer equity jurisdiction on Circuit Court over suit in equity where remedy exists at law; Lindsay v. Shreveport Bank, 156 U. S. 493, 39 L. 508, 15 S. Ct. 475, holding State procedure cannot authorize blending of legal and equitable claims in suit in Circuit Court; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 516, 42 L. 838, 18 S. Ct. 422, holding one entitled to sue in equity in Federal court cannot be deprived of right because allowed by State statute to sue at law on same cause; Benjamin ▼. Cavaroc, 2 Woods, 172, 173, F. C. 1,300, holding fact that State has empowered its courts to enforce equitable right by statutory proceeding does not oust Federal equity jurisdiction; Kimball v. Mobile Co., 3 Woods, 565, F. C. 7,774, holding State law providing other procedure cannot circumscribe equity jurisdiction of Federal courts; Teall v. Sullivan, 14 Sawy. 374, 40 Fed. 781, holding continued absence no excuse for failure to discover fraud, instrument being recorded; Morrow Shoe Co. v. New England Shoe Co., 60 Fed. 842, 18 U. S. App. 616, 24 L. R. A. 425, refusing to entertain credItor's bill against corporation by simple contract creditor under Illinois statute, legal remedy not being exhausted; United States v. Swan, 65 Fed. 652, 31 U. S. App. 112, holding garnishment proceedings cannot be entertained on equity side of Circuit Court, although allowed in equity by State statute; Davis v. Davis, 72 Fed. 84, 30 U. S. App. 723, holding equitable defenses in actions at law not permissible in Federal court, although permitted by State.

Courts. Where State effects an enlargement of equitable rights, administerable by State courts, same may be administered by Cir cuit Courts sitting in said State, p. 520.

Cited and principle followed in Holland v. Challen, 110 U. s. 24, 28 L. 56, 3 S. Ct. 500, holding Circuit Court, in Nebraska, will follow State statute, simplifying suits to quiet title; Reynolds v. Crawfordsville Bank, 112 U. S. 410, 28 L. 735, 5 S. Ct. 216, upholding jurisdiction of Circuit Court, in Indiana, over bill to quiet title, against deed alleged void on face; Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 171, 29 L. 88, 5 S. Ct. 805, holding Circuit Court, having jurisdic

tion, will administer same relief which State courts can grant; Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. 348, 33 L. 914, 10 S. Ct. 557, holding enlargement of equitable remedial proceeding, administerable by Circuit Court; Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U. S. 324, 39 L. 173, 15 S. Ct. 132, upholding jurisdiction over suit to quiet title, under Iowa code, neither party being in possession, there being no reinedy at law; Bardon v. Land Co., 157 U. S. 330, 39 L. 720, 15 S. Ct. 651, holding Circuit Court, in Wisconsin, may entertain action to quiet title, as enlarged by State statute; Cowley v. Northern Pacific R. R., 159 U. S. 583, 40 L. 267, 16 S. Ct. 131, holding Federal courts' powers over special proceeding, gauged by State statutes governing same; Wells v. Miner, 11 Sawy. 285, 25 Fed. 535, holding right of interpleader, as enlarged by California statute, enforceable in Circuit Court; Bank of Sherman v. Apperson, 4 Fed. 31, holding enlargement of commercial, enforceable in Federal courts; Flash v. Wilkerson, 22 Fed. 691, holding statutory rule of State prac tice, enforceable after removal, to preserve statutory liens; Whitehead v. Entwhistle, 27 Fed. 780, holding Federal courts will fol low remedy prescribed by State statute for enforcement of right created thereby; Aspen Min. Co. v. Rucker, 28 Fed. 222, holding Federal courts, sitting in equity, may administer any equitable right given by State; Bufford v. Holley, 28 Fed. 684, holding right conferred by State, must be enforced by Federal courts therein: Sprague Co. v. Hoyt, 29 Fed. 428, vesting title to land by decree in equity, without act of respondent, under Connecticut statute; Gilchrist v. Helena Hot Springs Co., 58 Fed. 711, upholding equitable jurisdiction to enforce State statutory liens; Grether v. Wright. 75 Fed. 746, 43 U. S. App. 770, holding Federal courts may grant statutory equitable remedy not infringing on right to jury trial; Missouri Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 77 Fed. 43, 40 U. S. App. 620, holding Minnesota statute, enlarging relief from usurious contract, binding on Circuit Court therein; Darragh v. Wetter Mfg. Co., 78 Fed. 13, 14, 49 U. S. App. 11, 13, and Lilienthal v. Drucklieb, 80 Fed. 563, holding party, by entering Federal court, loses no right or remedy available in State court; generally in Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. v. Keokuk Bridge Co., 68 Fed. 21, 46 U. S. App. 530, as to equity Jurisdiction; dissenting opinion in Cates v. Allen, 149 U. S. 463, 37 L. 810, 13 S. Ct. 978, majority holding contract creditor without judgment, without standing in Circuit (equity) Court upon bill to vacate fraudulent conveyance.

Qualified in Scott v. Neeby, 140 U. S. 109, 35 L. 360, 11 S. Ct. 713, holding rule subject to qualification that enforcement does not impair any constitutional right. Distinguished in Oakley v. Taylor, 64 Fed. 247, holding statute conferring right on equity courts to hear will contests, not enforceable in Federal court. Miscellaneous.- Ellis v. Davis, 4 Woods, 14, 16, and Sharon v. Terry, 13 Sawy. 409, no application.

VOL. VIII-30

22 W

21 Wall. 521-531, 22 L. 606, LANGDEAU v. HANES.

Treaties. By cession of territory, from one State to another, public property and sovereignty alone pass, private property remaining unaffected, p. 527.

Public lands.- Legislation confirmatory of French settlers' titles in Northwest Territory reviewed, p. 528.

Public lands.- Legislative confirmation of claim to land with defined boundaries, perfects title thereto, and subsequent patent is only documentary evidence of title, p. 530.

Cited and principle followed in Morrow v. Whitney, 95 U. S. 555, 24 L. 457, holding confirmation of grant perfects title as against subsequent patent, for military purposes, subsequent patent being only evidence; Whitney v. Morrow, 112 U. S. 695, 28 L. 872, 5 S. Ct. 334, holding patent does not add to validity and completeness of title confirmed by Congress; Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 499, 30 L. 1041, 7 S. Ct. 988, holding grantees of identified swamp lands may maintain for recovery thereof before issuance of patent; Wisconsin R. R. v. Price Co., 133 U. S. 510, 33 L. 694, 10 S. Ct. 346, holding land taxable by State prior to issuance of patent, but after fulfillment of conditions; St. Paul v. Northern Pacific R. R., 139 U. S. 6, 35 L. 80, 11 S. Ct. 390, holding confirmation not affected by subsequent patent; Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey, 142 U. S. 251, 35 L. 1003, 12 S. Ct. 162, holding grantee may maintain ejectment before issuance of patent; McNee v. Donahue, 142 U. S. 598, 35 L. 1127, 12 S. Ct. 215, affirming S. C., 76 Cal. 502, 504, 18 Pac. 440, 441, affirming rule; Russell v. Maxwell Land Co., 158 U. S. 255, 39 L. 971, 15 S. Ct. 828, holding survey, by proper officers, not open to collateral attack after confirmation; Shaw v. Kellogg, 170 U. S. 341, 42 L. 1060, 18 S. Ct. 644, holding survey by land department completed title prior to issuance of patent; Adams v. Burke, 3 Sawy. 419, F. C. 49, and Wythe v. Haskell, 3 Sawy. 578, F. C. 18,118, both holding patent, under Oregon donation act, merely evidence of title passed by act; Tripp v. Spring, 5 Sawy. 216, holding confirmation of Congress controls any subsequent patent; Cahn v. Barnes, 7 Sawy. 55, 5 Fed. 333, holding patent conclusive record evidence of identity of lands granted; Pengra v. Munz, 12 Sawy. 238, 29 Fed. 835, holding effect of patent to give patentee record evidence of preexisting title; Denny v. Dodson, 13 Sawy. 76, 32 Fed. 904, holding Northern Pacific grant one in præsenti; Francœur v. Newhouse, 14 Sawy. 354, 40 Fed. 620, holding ejectment maintainable prior to issuance of patent; Briggs v. Wash-Puk-Qua, 37 Fed. 137, holding patentee estopped by warranty deed conveying to grantee, before patent, from asserting title thereunder; Northern Pacific R. R. v. Wright, 51 Fed. 71, holding act making direct grant better evidence of title than patent; Jatunn v. Smith, 95 Cal. 159, 30 Pac 201, holding adverse possession, commencing after date of grant,

not interrupted by subsequent patent; Liddon v. Hodnett, 22 Fla. 448, holding exemplification of patent, record evidence of same dignity as patent; Briggs v. McClain, 43 Kan. 655, 23 Pac. 1046, holding title passed to heirs of allottee, under Kikapoo act of 1862, who dies prior to patent; Busch v. Donohue, 31 Mich. 484, holding grants of swamp lands, in præsenti, subsequent patent being mere evidence; Miller v. Tobin, 16 Or. 545, 16 Pac. 164, holding title of patentee of swamp land from Oregon, superior to that of subsequent Federal patentee; Clark v. Hills, 67 Tex. 145, 147, 2 S. W. 358, holding confirmation passes title; Barden v. Northern Pacific R. R., 154 U. S. 337, 38 L. 1005, 14 S. Ct. 1042, majority holding mineral lands excluded from grant to defendant; Farmers' Loan Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. R., 39 Fed. 151 (overruled, see Angle v. Chicago, etc., Ry., 151 U. S. 27, 40, generally), De Mares v. Gilpin, 15 Colo. 81, 24 Pac. 570, and Baird v. St. Louis Hospital, 3 Mo. App. 439, all holding description in grant sufficiently definite; Petring v. Delore, 3 Mo. App. 606, and Talbot v. King, 6 Mont. 108, 9 Pac. 442, both holding patent relates back.

Distinguished in Slidell v. Grandjean, 111 U. S. 439, 28 L. 330, 4 S. Ct. 488, holding confirmation of grant, stating no boundaries, void for uncertainty; Marsh v. Nicols, 128 U. S. 611, 32 L. 541, 9 S. Ct. 170, holding patent to invention conveys no rights until properly signed and issued; Michigan Land Co. v. Rust, 168 U. S. 592, 42 L. 592, 18 S. Ct. 209, where granting act specially provided for issuance of patent; Smith v. Madison, 67 Mo. 704, additional formalities being requisite to pass title under original Spanish grant.

Public lands. On legislative confirmation of claim to certain quantity, but not to specific tract of land, segregation by survey will be required, when confirmation will immediately attach title to land segregated, p. 531.

Cited in Stoneroad v. Stoneroad, 158 U. S. 253, 39 L. 970, 15 S. Ct. 827, holding confirmation of grant in issue implied that it should be segregated by survey; President, etc. v. McClure, 167 Ill. 37, 47 N. E. 76, construing State act.

Adverse possession.— One claiming, under confirmation of French settlers' titles, in Northwest Territory (1807), cannot maintain ejectment against one entering under claim and color of title, and in possession seven years, notwithstanding issuance of patent to plaintiff during said period, p. 531.

21 Wall. 532-558, 22 L. 487, EDWARDS v. ELLIOT.

Courts. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction, where errors do not show definitely that any question cognizable there, under a writ of error, was presented to State court for decision, p. 549.

Reaffirmed in Hagar v. California, 154 U. S. 639, 24 L. 1044, 14 S. Ct. 1186. Cited and principle applied in O'Neil v. Vermont, 144

U. S. 335, 36 L. 457, 12 S. Ct. 698, holding record did not present a Federal question; Snell v. Dwight, 121 Mass. 350, refusing to order an amendment to record, six months after judgment, to enable case to be removed to Federal courts.

Appeal and error.- Supreme Court cannot go out of record to re-examine any question under a writ of error to a State court, p. 549.

Cited and principle applied in Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 583, 24 L. 1086, holding party, by not requiring referees to be sworn, waives any objection; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 574, 26 L. 234, Drexel v. True, 74 Fed. 14, 36 U. S. App. 611, and Carter-Crume Co. v. Peurrung, 86 Fed. 441, all holding objection, not taken in court below, cannot be considered here.

Courts.- Supreme Court has jurisdiction where State court decided that contract for building a vessel was not maritime, and lien given by State law was constitutional, pp. 550-551.

Appeal and error.- Where State court amended judgment after entry of writ of error, original judgment is one to be re-examined, p. 552.

Admiralty. State legislatures cannot create a maritime lien, nor confer jurisdiction on State court to enforce such a lien by suit or proceeding in rem, p. 556.

Cited and principle applied in The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 11, 37 L. 347, 13 S. Ct. 500, and The Glide, 167 U. S. 620, 42 L. 301, 17 8. Ct. 935, both holding lien given by State, to be enforced in rem, is enforceable only in admiralty; The J. F. Warner, 22 Fed. 345, holding admiralty has jurisdiction, in personam, of purely executory agreement, and where State law has annexed a lien will enforce it; The Illinois, 2 Flipp. 408, F. C. 7,005, holding lien for supplies, under State statute, valid; State v. Cox, N. J. L. 44 Atl. 206, lien for repairs in home port, not cognizable in State tribunal; Hayford v. Cunningham, 72 Me. 134, holding admiralty remedies for repairs upon domestic vessels belong exclusively to admiralty; The Willapa, 25 Or. 76, 34 Pac. 690, holding lien given by State statute, arising out of maritime contracts, must be enforced in admiralty. See note, 62 Am. Dec. 236, on jurisdiction of District Courts.

Admiralty. Contract for building a ship, or to furnish materials for that purpose, is not maritime, p. 556.

Cited and principle applied in Endner v. Greco, 3 Fed. 413, holding suit in personam, for repairs furnished domestic vessel, is cognizable in admiralty; The Guiding Star, 9 Fed. 524, and The Count de Lesseps, 17 Fed. 461, both holding like cited case; In re Glenmont, 32 Fed. 704, and The Glenmont, 34 Fed. 403, both holding there was no lien for equipment, after hull was launched; Doo