Statement of the Case.

as may be, and that he is in possession thereof, and that the defendant makes some claim thereto, and to demand judgment that the plaintiff's claim be established against any claim of the defendant, and that he be forever barred against having or claiming any right or title to the land, adverse to the plaintiff; and the defendant, if he do not so disclaim and release, may answer any matter in denial of the plaintiff's claim, title, or possession, or which, if proved, will establish his own, and judgment shall be rendered according to the rights of the parties. And any person not having such title or possession, but being the owner and holder of any lien or incumbrance on land, shall also have the same right of action as the owner in fee in possession, to test the legality and validity of any other claim, lien or incumbrance on such land or any part thereof."

Complainant purchased the land of one Hiram Hayes and paid him therefor $6400, June 2, 1883, and took a warranty deed of conveyance and had paid the taxes since that time and expended on the land up to 1890, including the taxes of 1889, something over $12,500. Hayes derived title through two tax deeds issued to him, one dated September 5, 1870, for the taxes of 1866, recorded September 7, 1870, and the other issued January 1, 1882, for the taxes of 1877, and recorded January 3, 1882. The original owner of the land was one James D. Ray, who conveyed it to James Bardon by release or quitclaim on March 6, 1878, and James Bardon subsequently conveyed it to Thomas Bardon, the defendant, for a nominal consideration. James Bardon testifies that he paid Ray for his quitclaim deed $100, "and perhaps more;" and conveyed his interest to Thomas without money consideration. The case turned upon the validity of these tax deeds or either of them, and the Circuit Court held that the deed dated September 5, 1870, was valid; that the statute of limitations had run upon it; that the original owner was barred; and that complainant's title was good. A decree was accordingly entered for complainant, to review which this appeal is prosecuted. The opinion of the Circuit Court will be found, 45 Fed. Rep. 706.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. W. C. Silverthorn and Mr. T. C. Ryan, (with whom was Mr. M. A. Hurley on the brief,) for appellant.

Mr. A. L. Sanborn, (with whom were Mr. John C. Spooner and Mr. F. W. Downer on the brief,) for appellee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the

court.

We remarked in Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. 338, 348, that while the rule was well settled that remedies in the courts of the United States at common law or in equity, according to the essential character of the case, are uncontrolled in that particular by the practice of the state courts, yet an enlargement of equitable rights by state statutes may be administered by the Circuit Courts of the United States, as well as by the courts of the State; and when the case is one of a remedial proceeding, essentially of an equitable character, there can be no objection to the exercise of the jurisdiction. Broderick Will Case, 21 Wall. 503, 520; Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15, 25; Frost v. Spitley, 121 U. S. 552, 557.

Notwithstanding the statute may have enlarged the ordinary equitable action to quiet title and to remove a cloud, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to award the relief prayed if the bill were properly brought under the section in question; and, as that section provided that any person having the possession and legal title might institute the suit, we perceive no reason why the complainant could not, if it were in possession, as is conceded, and had obtained the legal title through either of the tax deeds, a matter to be hereafter examined.

Section 35 of chapter 22 of the General Laws of Wisconsin of 1859, reënacted as section 1197 of the Revised Statutes of 1878, (Gen. Laws Wis. 1859, p. 21; Rev. Stat. Wis. 1878, c. 50, p. 383,) provided that the grantee in a tax deed might, at any time within three years after its date, commence an action against the owner or any person claiming under him for the purpose of barring such owner or his grantees from all right, title, interest, or claim in the land conveyed, and it

Opinion of the Court.

is argued that that remedy was exclusive, and not having been availed of by Hayes, that complainant cannot maintain this suit. But there is nothing in the statute to show that the remedy existing during three years after the date of the tax deed was intended to contract the jurisdiction and practice in equity, independently of statute, in respect of bills to quiet title, or to exclude the general remedy given by section 3186, (a remedy existing in Wisconsin since 1858, § 29, c. 141, Rev. Stat. 1858,) in favor of a person having the legal title and actual possession, though that legal title depended on a tax deed. Stridde v. Saroni, 21 Wisconsin, 173; Grimmer v. Sumner, 21 Wisconsin, 179; Wals v. Grosvenor, 31 Wisconsin, 681; Grignon v. Black, 76 Wisconsin, 674.

Nor can we regard the position of appellant that this suit was barred under section 22 of chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes of 1858 as tenable. That section provided that "an action for relief not hereinbefore provided for, must be commenced within ten years after the cause of action shall have accrued," and the enumerated actions apparently did not include this suit. But this alleged limitation was not set up in the answer or the question raised in any way so far as appears, in the Circuit Court, and, if so, comes too late. And, apart from that, actual possession was not taken until October 13, 1889, and the bill was filed November 1, 1889.

We proceed then to the objections urged to the validity of the tax deed of September 5, 1870, and these must be disposed of, in accordance with the interpretation of the statutes of Wisconsin, by the highest judicial tribunal of that State. As was observed in Lewis v. Munson, 151 U. S. 545, 549: "No question is more clearly a matter of local law than one arising under the tax laws. Tax proceedings are carried on by the State for the purpose of collecting its revenue, and the various steps which shall be taken in such proceedings, the force and effect to be given to any act of the taxing officers, the results to follow the non-payment of taxes, and the form and efficacy of the tax deed, are all subjects which the State has power to prescribe, and peculiarly and vitally affecting its well-being. The determination of any questions affecting them is a matter

Opinion of the Court.

primarily belonging to the courts of the State, and the national tribunals universally follow their rulings except in cases where it is claimed that some right protected by the Federal constitution has been invaded."

Under the laws of Wisconsin the owner of land sold for taxes might, at any time within three years from date of the certificate of sale, redeem the same in the manner prescribed, and in like manner redeem at any time before the tax deed executed upon such sale was recorded. Gen. Laws Wis. 1859, c. 22, §§ 18, 19; Rev. Statutes of 1878, § 1165.

By section 25, c. 22, of the laws of 1859, carried forward into section 1176 of the Revised Statutes of 1878, it was provided that the tax deed, "duly witnessed and acknowledged, shall be prima facie evidence of the regularity of all the proceedings, from the valuation of the land by the assessor inclusive, up to the execution of the deed, and may be recorded with like effect as other conveyances of land."

Section 5 of chapter 138 of the laws of 1861 provided that no action should be commenced by the former owner to recover possession of land which had been sold and conveyed for nonpayment of taxes or to avoid the deed, unless the action should be commenced within three years next after the recording of the deed. Rev. Stat. 1878, § 1188.

By section 32 of chapter 22 of the laws of 1859 it was enacted that no action should be maintained by the grantee in a tax deed or any one claiming under him, to recover the possession of the land described therein unless such action should be brought within three years next after the date of the recording of such deed, or unless such grantee or those claiming under him shall have paid the taxes assessed on such land for five years next after the date of such deed, or unless such grantee, or those claiming under him, had been in actual, continual possession of said land claiming title for three years previous to the expiration of five years next after the date of such deed. Rev. Stat. 1878, § 1187.

The rule may be accepted as thoroughly settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin that when a tax deed is in due form and recorded in the proper office and the

Opinion of the Court.

lands described therein remain vacant and unoccupied for three years or more after the recording thereof, the tax title claimant is deemed to be in the constructive possession, the statute runs in his favor, and the original owner is barred from attacking its validity. Geekie v. Kirby Carpenter Co., 106 U. S. 379; Gunnison v. Hoehne, 18 Wisconsin, 268; Lawrence v. Kenney, 32 Wisconsin, 281; St. Croix Co. v. Ritchie, 73 Wisconsin, 409; Dupen v. Wetherby, 79 Wisconsin, 203; Lander v. Bromley, 79 Wisconsin, 372; Hotson v. Wetherby, 60 N. W. Rep. 423; Oconto Co. v. Jerrard, 46 Wisconsin, 317, 327. In the last case Chief Justice Ryan said: "It has been uniformly held, in a multitude of cases, that, as against the grantee of a tax deed, the statute puts at rest all objections against the validity of the tax proceedings, whether resting on mere irregularity or going to the groundwork of the tax. The statute makes a deed valid on its face prima facie evidence, as soon as executed, of the regularity of all the proceedings, from the assessment of the lands, inclusive, to the execution of the deed. And the effect of all the decisions is, that when the statute has run in favor of the grantee, the deed becomes conclusive to the same extent. See Edgerton v. Bird, 6 Wisconsin, 527, and the cases collected in the note of Vilas & Bryant; Lawrence v. Kenney, 32 Wisconsin, 281; Wood v. Meyer, 36 Wisconsin, 308,”

Here the land was vacant and unoccupied for more than three years from the time of the record of the tax deed, and if that deed was not void upon its face and was properly recorded it would follow that, under these decisions, Hayes obtained the legal title. With the record of the deed the time of redemption ended and the period of limitation began. Before the deed was recorded the owner might tender the redemption money and defeat the tax title, and at any time within three years after record he might bring suit to impeach the tax deed, or make defence to suit against him, by proof of defects in the proceedings upon which it was based. But after the expiration of three years, the statute purged the tax proceedings of all defects, and the deed could only be attacked on the ground of want of power to levy and sell by reason of