title, and estate of the former owner of the land and also of the state and county, and is evidence in all courts that the property conveyed was subject to the taxes for the years stated; that they were not paid, and that redemption was not made before the sale; that the property had been properly listed and assessed and the taxes properly levied; that the property was advertised for sale in the manner and for the length of time required, and was sold as stated in the deed, and that the grantee named was the purchaser or assignee of the purchaser of the property; and, indeed, that all the prerequisites of the law had been complied with by the officers whose duty it was to have taken any part in the transaction relating to or affecting the title conveyed. No person is permitted to question the title thus acquired without showing that he had title to the property at the time of the sale, or has since obtained the title from the United States, and that the property was not subject to taxation for the years named; or that the taxes had been paid before the sale, or that the property had never been assessed for taxation, or had been redeemed from the sale, or that there had been fraud committed by the officer in making the sale, or by the purchaser to defeat it. The plaintiff, therefore, had a complete legal title to the premises in controversy, unless some one of the defects mentioned, affecting the validity of the assessment and sale of the property, existed at the time, or fraud had been committed by the officer or purchaser in the sale. Having an apparent legal title by the deeds, it was, of course, important to him and, indeed, necessary for the peaceable possession of the property and its improvements, to have any adverse claims, notwithstanding such deeds, considered and settled. We think, therefore, that he was entitled, upon the statement made in his amended bill, the only one before us, to call upon the defendant to produce and disclose whatever estate she had in the premises in question, to the end that its validity may be determined; and if adjudged invalid, that the title of the plaintiff may be quieted. It follows that the decree of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded, with leave to the defendant to answer the bill, and it is so ordered. This case is explained and distinguished in Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146. BENNETT v. BUTTERWORTH. Reported in 11 Howard, 669. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the court: This is a writ of error to the district court of the United States for the district of Texas.1 The common law has been adopted in Texas, but the forms and rules of pleading in common law cases have been abolished, and the parties are at liberty to set out their respective claims and defenses in any form that will bring them before the court. And as there is no distinction in its courts between cases at law and equity, it has been insisted in this case, on behalf of the defendant in error, that this court may regard the plaintiff's petition either as a declaration at law or as a bill in equity. Whatever may be the laws of Texas in this respect, they do not govern the proceedings in the courts of the United States. And although the forms of proceedings and practice in the state courts have been adopted in the district court, yet the adoption of the state practice must not be understood as confounding the principles of law and equity, nor as authorizing legal and equitable claims to be blended together in one suit. The constitution of the United States, in creating and defining the judicial power of the general government, establishes this distinction between law and equity; and a party who claims a legal title must proceed at law, and may undoubtedly proceed according to the forms of practice in such cases in the state court. But if the claim is an equitable one, he must proceed according to rules which this court has prescribed (under the authority of the Act of August 23, 1842), regulating proceedings in equity in the courts of the United States. There is nothing in these proceedings which resembles a bill or answer in equity according to the rules prescribed by this court, nor any evidence stated upon which a decree in equity could be revised in an appellate court. Nor was any equitable title set up by Butterworth, the plaintiff, in the court below. He claimed in his petition a legal title to the negroes, which the defendant denied, insisting that he himself was the legal owner. It was a suit at law to try a legal title. 1 The action below was by petition in the nature of a bill in equity for the specific delivery of the slaves. MISSISSIPPI MILLS v. COIIN. Reported in 150 U. S. 202. THE facts in this case are as follows: On March 29, 1881, Joel Wood and William H. Lee, citizens of the state of Missouri, partners as Wood & Lee, obtained a judgment in the eighth district court of the parish of East Carroll, Louisiana, against Simon Cohn, a citizen of the state of Louisi ana, for $539.25, with interest, for goods sold by them to him on October 30, 1880. On April 2, 1881, S. B. Newman and S. D. Stockman, composing the firm of S. B. Newman & Co., also obtained a judgment in the same court against said Cohn for $24,282.16, which judgment, subject to a credit of $5,452, the proceeds of certain attachment proceedings accompanying the action, was duly assigned to Wood & Lee. Newman and Stockman were both citizens of Louisiana. On November 30, 1885, Wood & Lee filed their bill in equity in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Louisiana against Simon Cohn, his wife Fannie Cohn, and his wife's mother, Henrietta Steinhardt, all citizens of Louisiana, the purpose and object of which was to set aside as fraudulent a judgment in favor of Mrs. Cohn against Simon Cohn, and to subject certain property standing in the name of Mrs. Steinhardt, and alleged to be the property in fact of Simon Cohn, to the payment of these judgments. On July 11, 1882, the Mississippi Mills, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi, obtained a judgment in the eighth district court of the parish of East Carroll, Louisiana, against Simon Cohn, for $751.46. On July 5, 1883, it commenced in that court a suit of substantially the same nature remanded, with leave to the defendant to answer the bill, and it is so ordered. This case is explained and distinguished in Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146. BENNETT v. BUTTERWORTH. Reported in 11 Howard, 669. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the court: This is a writ of error to the district court of the United States for the district of Texas.1 The common law has been adopted in Texas, but the forms and rules of pleading in common law cases have been abolished, and the parties are at liberty to set out their respective claims and defenses in any form that will bring them before the court. And as there is no distinction in its courts between cases at law and equity, it has been insisted in this case, on behalf of the defendant in error, that this court may regard the plaintiff's petition either as a declaration at law or as a bill in equity. Whatever may be the laws of Texas in this respect, they do not govern the proceedings in the courts of the United States. And although the forms of proceedings and practice in the state courts have been adopted in the district court, yet the adoption of the state practice must not be understood as confounding the principles of law and equity, nor as authorizing legal and equitable claims to be blended together in one suit. The constitution of the United States, in creating and defining the judicial power of the general government, establishes this distinction between law and equity; and a party who claims a legal title must proceed at law, and may undoubtedly proceed according to the forms of practice in such cases in the state court. But if the claim is an equitable one, he must proceed according to rules which this court has prescribed (under the authority of the Act of August 23, 1842), regulating proceedings in equity in the courts of the United States. There is nothing in these proceedings which resembles a bill or answer in equity according to the rules prescribed by this court, nor any evidence stated upon which a decree in equity could be revised in an appellate court. Nor was any equitable title set up by Butterworth, the plaintiff, in the court below. He claimed in his petition a legal title to the negroes, which the defendant denied, insisting that he himself was the legal owner. It was a suit at law to try a legal title. ** 1 The action below was by petition in the nature of a bill in equity for the specific delivery of the slaves. MISSISSIPPI MILLS v. COIIN. Reported in 150 U. S. 202. On THE facts in this case are as follows: On March 29, 1881, Joel Wood and William H. Lee, citizens of the state of Missouri, partners as Wood & Lee, obtained a judgment in the eighth district court of the parish of East Carroll, Louisiana, against Simon Cohn, a citizen of the state of Louisi ana, for $539.25, with interest, for goods sold by them to him on October 30, 1880. On April 2, 1881, S. B. Newman and S. D. Stockman, composing the firm of S. B. Newman & Co., also obtained a judgment in the same court against said Cohn for $24,282.16, which judgment, subject to a credit of $5,452, the proceeds of certain attachment proceedings accompanying the action, was duly assigned to Wood & Lee. Newman and Stockman were both citizens of Louisiana. November 30, 1885, Wood & Lee filed their bill in equity in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Louisiana against Simon Cohn, his wife Fannie Cohn, and his wife's mother, Henrietta Steinhardt, all citizens of Louisiana, the purpose and object of which was to set aside as fraudulent a judgment in favor of Mrs. Cohn against Simon Cohn, and to subject certain property standing in the name of Mrs. Steinhardt, and alleged to be the property in fact of Simon Cohn, to the payment of these judgments. On July 11, 1882, the Mississippi Mills, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi, obtained a judgment in the eighth district court of the parish of East Carroll, Louisiana, against Simon Cohn, for $751.46. On July 5, 1883, it commenced in that court a suit of substantially the same nature |