Opinion of the Court.

by this court that the plaintiff, by voluntarily making himself a party to those proceedings, abandoned his extraterritorial immunity from the operation of the bankrupt law of Louisiana, and was bound by that law to the same extent to which the citizens of Louisiana were bound.

In Beaupré v. Noyes, 138 U. S. 397, a similar question was presented. There it was contended on behalf of creditors, the plaintiffs in error, that an alleged assignment was conclusively fraudulent as to them for want of an immediate delivery, followed by an actual and continued change of possession of the goods assigned; that their right so to treat the assignment, although such right was specially set up and claimed, was denied; and that consequently they were denied a right arising under an authority exercised under the United States. But this court said:

"Whether the state court so interpreted the territorial statute as to deny such right to the plaintiffs in error we need not inquire, for it proceeded, in part, upon another and distinct ground not involving any Federal question, and sufficient in itself to maintain the judgment without reference to that question. That ground is, that there was evidence tending to show that the defendants, [plaintiffs in error,] acquiesced in and assented to all that was done, and waived any irregularity in the mode in which the assignee conducted the business; and that the question whether the defendants so acquiesced and assented with knowledge of all the facts, and thereby waived their right to treat the assignment as fraudulent, was properly submitted to the jury. The state court evidently intended to hold that, even if the assignment was originally fraudulent as against the creditors, . it was competent for the plaintiffs in error to waive the fraud and treat the assignment as valid for all the purposes specified in it. That view does not involve a Federal question. Whether sound or not, we do not inquire. It is broad enough in itself to support the final judgment without reference to the Federal question."

In July, 1887, William J. Eustis brought an action in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts against Bolles and

Opinion of the Court.

Wilde, wherein he sought to recover the balance on a note remaining unpaid after the receipt of one half received under insolvency proceedings under a state act passed after the creation of the debt. The defendants pleaded the proceedings in insolvency, their offer of composition, its acceptance by the majority in number and value of their creditors, their discharge, and the acceptance by Eustis of the amount coming to him under the offer of composition. To this answer the plaintiff demurred. The trial court, which overruled the demurrer, made a finding of facts, and reported the case for the determination of the full court.

The Supreme Judicial Court was of opinion that Eustis, by accepting the benefit of the composition, had waived any right that he might otherwise have had to object to the validity of the composition statute as impairing the obligation of a contract made before its enactment. 146 Mass. 413.

The case was brought to this court, where it was argued, on behalf of the plaintiff in error, that a composition act was, as to debts existing prior to its passage, void and in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, and that a creditor, where demand is saved from the operation of a state statute or of a state decree by the Constitution of the United States, does not waive the benefit of this constitutional immunity by accepting the part of his demand which the state statute or decree says shall constitute full satisfaction.

This court held that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in holding that, when the composition was confirmed, Eustis was put to his election whether he would avail himself of the composition offer or would reject it and rely upon his right to enforce his debt against his debtors, notwithstanding their discharge, did not decide a Federal question, and that hence the question as to the constitutionality of the State statute did not arise. Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361.

The plaintiff in error accepted the powers and rights conferred by the act of 1868, and joined in the proceedings for the assessment of damages. It must, therefore, be deemed to have agreed that the damages should be assessed in the manner provided for in the act. At all events, the Supreme

Statement of the Case.

Court of the State has so decided, and as its judgment was not based on any Federal question we have no jurisdiction to review it, and the writ of error is accordingly

Dismissed.

CARTER v. RUDDY.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT..

Generally a patent is necessary for transfer of the legal title to public lands.

It is well settled that an action of ejectment cannot be maintained in the courts of the United States on a merely equitable title; and there is nothing in this case to exempt it from the rule that a patent is necessary to convey legal title.

The verdict of a jury determines questions of fact at issue and this court cannot review such determination, or examine the testimony further than to see that there was sufficient to justify the conclusions reached. If the trial court gives the law fully and accurately, covering all the ground necessary to advise the jury of the rights of the parties, it is not neces sary to instruct them in the very language of counsel.

When a tract of land is held as a separate and distinct tract, with boundaries designated so that they may be known, the possession by the owner or his tenants of a part operates as a possession of all; but if the tract is cut up into distinct lots, marked and treated as distinct tracts, the claimant to all must show possession of all.

ON April 12, 1889, plaintiff in error commenced an action of ejectment in the District Court of Shoshone County, Territory of Idaho, to recover of defendants the possession of a portion of the north half of block 22 in the town of Wallacein said county and Territory, and damages for the detention thereof. After answers by the several defendants (Idahohaving been admitted into the Union as a State), the case was, on application of the plaintiff, transferred to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Idaho. The petition for the transfer alleged two grounds: one, diverse citizenship, and the other, the existence of Federal questions, to wit, the construction of the act of Congress, of date July 17, 1854,

Opinion of the Court.

c. 83, authorizing the issue and location of Sioux half-breed scrip, 10 Stat. 304, the construction of sections 2387 to 2389, Revised Statutes, relating to town sites, and the question. whether section 4556, Idaho Revised Statutes, 1887, is or is not inconsistent with the laws of Congress governing the possession and disposition of the public lands. A trial was had before a jury, commencing on December 4, 1891, which resulted in a verdict for the defendants. Upon this verdict judgment was entered in their favor, which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 15 U. S. App. 129. Thereupon the case was brought here on error.

Mr. W. B. Heyburn, Mr. Albert Allen and Mr. John R. McBride for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edgar Wilson for defendants in error.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after making the above statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The first question arises on the plaintiff's claim of a legal title by virtue of a location of Sioux half-breed scrip. It appears that under the act of Congress a certificate, No. 430, Letter C, for 80 acres, was issued to Walter Bourke. This certificate, which was marked "not transferable or assignable," was dated November 24, 1856. On June 5, 1886, it was presented by W. R. Wallace at the local land office at Cœur d'Alene, accompanied by an irrevocable power of attorney to him executed by Walter Bourke and his wife, on February 27, 1883, and was located upon 80 acres, within which was the property in dispute. When the location papers were transmitted to the General Land Office at Washington it was discovered that Bourke had on October 26, 1870, applied to the department for a duplicate certificate, on a representation that the original had been lost or destroyed; that such application had been sustained and a duplicate certificate issued ; that on March 9, 1880, he had located such duplicate on land in Dakota, and received a patent therefor. Upon the dis

Opinion of the Court.

closure of these facts the Commissioner of the General Land Office cancelled this location in Idaho.

66

Now, the contention of plaintiff is that the location of this scrip operated to transfer the legal title to Bourke, by deed from whom the plaintiff claimed; that no patent was necessary, and that whatever of wrong Bourke may have committed, the legal title was in him and could only be divested by a suit in equity brought by the United States. This scrip is of the same character as that which was before this court in Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. S. 317. While it is true that the act of 1854 does not in terms provide for the issue of a patent, and simply authorizes the location of the scrip upon any public lands, yet the general rule is that a patent is necessary for the transfer of the legal title to public lands. In Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 436, 450, it was said: Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States; and the whole legislation of the Federal government, in reference to the public lands, declares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title; until its issuance the fee is in the Government; by the patent, it passes to the grantee, and he is entitled to recover the possession in ejectment." See also Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498, 516; Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U. S. 74, 83, in which it was said: "It has been repeatedly decided by this court, that such certificates of the officers of the land department do not convey the legal title of the land to the holder of the certificate, but that they only evidence an equitable title, which may afterwards be perfected by the issue of a patent, and that in the courts of the United States such certificates are not sufficient to authorize a recovery in an action of ejectment." Hussman v. Durham, 165 U. S. 144.

It is true there are exceptions to this rule. One is specially provided by statute, Rev. Stat. § 2449, which makes a certification to a State equivalent to a patent as a conveyance of title. Again, as said in Wilcox v. Jackson (supra), “One class of cases to be excepted is, where an act of Congress grants land, as is sometimes done in words of present grant." This