SMYTHE
V.
NEW ORLEANS CANAL
&;
BANKING
CO.
825
the land on his execution, and H. E. Snavely had brought suit to enjoin him. In the case cited the supreme court held that the cause was removable; that it was a new and independent controversy between new parties. The case of Bank v. TtbrnbuU, 16 Wall. 190, to which my attention bas been called, was a statutory proceeding to try in a summary way the title to personal property seized on execution, and is referred to and distinguished in Bondurant v. WatBon, supra. See Stackhouse v. ZuntB, 15 Fed. Rep. 481. This question is discussed in Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10, and Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U. S. 80, and the distinction between dependent and auxiliary actions on the one hand, and independand origiUlll proceedings 011 the other, pointed out. This suit, in my jUdgment, comes under the latter class, and was removable under the act of 1875. Motion to remand denied.
SMYTHE v. NEW ORLEANS CANAL & BANKING Co. et aL {(H"",dt Oourt, E. D. LouiBiana. April 28, 1888 )
1.
EQUlTY-JURllSDlCTION-RECOVERY Oll' LAND-ADEQUATE REM",l.lY AT
LAw. . A bill to recover land, which shows a legal title in complainant, and alleges thafdefendants claim under a fictitious French grant, and that the officials of the land department have'tnade certain rulings adverse to his title which are without jurisdiction and void, shows no ground for equity jurisdiction, since such rulings might, if void, be as well disregarded at law as in equity
9.
The validity of complainant's legal title derived from the United States and the state depending on the question whether those under whom defendants claim had a sufficient title before the acquisitionof the territory of Orleans, there is no ground for the interference of equity. SAME-MULTIPLICITY Oll' SUITS.
8.
Equity will not take jurisdietion of a suit to recover land on the ground of the number of defendants and the multiplicity of suits required at law, it not appearing that these would be any more numerous than in equity, and the petitory action allowing the joinder of all persons in possession of the land and claiming under the same common title.
Farrar k KruttBchnitt, Girault Farrar, S. L. Gilmore, G. A. Breaux, Braughn, Buck, Dinkelspiel k .Hart, and G. L. Bright, for other defendants. PARDEE and BILLINGS, JJ. The suit is one to recover real estate, and the question to be considered is whether it is within the equity jurisdiction of the court. 'rhe complainant claims 2,295 acres of swamp lands in the south-eastern land district of Louisiana. He alleges patents
Co.
In Equity. J. Ad. Rozier and J. Ward Gurley, Jr., for complainant. H. O. MiUer and W. S. Pinney, for the New Orleans Canal & Banking
826
FEDERAL REPORTER.·· ,
from the United States and! the state of Louisilllla for 1,495 acres,anc\ for the remaining 800 acres be alleges a purchase from the state of Loutsmna, the whole being purchased from the state of Louisiana overoue year after 'the eompletion and approvAl of the United States official survey by tbesurveyorgeperal, and the consequent listing. of the said lands as swamp lands inuring to the state: of Louisiana under acts of congress approved .March 2, ]849, and September 28, 1850, granting swamp lands to the state of Louisiana. There is no question but that the complainant's. title as to 1,495 acres is purely legal. As to the 800 acres there. may be some doubt, but it arises because. the bill is not sufficiently ex-, plicit. ,The:purchase from. the state of Louisiana is alleged tobeshown by jacertificate of purchase·.:; If the state law authorizes a sale, and, in the absence of patents from the. United States, the iSElua,nce of a certificate of purchase,-which does not appear by the bill,-then complainant's title to the 800 acres is also a complete legal title. See Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 517,7 Sup; Ct. Rep. 985. As to the effect of a receiver's certificate of purchase of land from the state of Louisiana, and as to whether it translates see Doles v. Cockrel}, l0 La. Arm. 540. In argUIrlent on'this dem't1rrer counsel f6t(l6m pli\inant'claimed' for him a legal title; and in fact, from the averments of the bill, we think it sufficiently appears that thelitle of thecohlplaimmt is a title, and whether or no it is as against the. defendants a valid title, depends entirelru'P9D, those,iunder whom the defendants claim had a sufficient. tifla before Uiiiteq' Statesa,cquired the pf Orleans. The can in no proper sense be said to have astanding· beon aQcoWltqnhe equitablehature of 'his title. The bill is not one for discovery, b'ecause it isri6t so framed,and', if it were, it would be demurrable ()n .the, ground that a, bill of dis90very will not lie to production'9f titles under which the complainant does not claim, and which are not Wqis tktle. 2 Story; Eg. Jur. §§ 14:89, 1490j 1 Porn. Eq. Jur. § 201. It cannot Pe said that tbejurisdiction in, equity is necessary to pre\'ent' a multiplicity of suits,' for by the bill it does not app.ell,l' that.ally;tnpre suits at law will be necessary to vindicate tbecomplainant's rights than jnequity. As one suit in equity brings all the defendants before the court,so it may at law. Inactions of ejectment all persons in possession of the land are made defendants. See Dicey, Parties,. margo pp.494, 495; Jack80n v. Woods, 5 Johns. 278; Jackson v.Andre!liJ8, 7Wefid.l:52. '. In the petitory action in Louisiana all persona'iiJ. possession of the!landin controversy, and 'claiming under same common title, may be made defendants. Derbe.s v. Romero, 28 La. Ann; 644. 'And in actions inejectm'entll,nd, in .petitc)ry·actions the right to rents and prdfits can bejoiuMand enfot-oed as effectively, ifnot as readily; as in equity. See Jackscm v. Woods, 5 Johns. 278; Code Pl'. La. art.' 7; Winter v. Zacharie, 6 Rob. (La.) 466; and Ilipp v. Babin, 19 How. 271. Indeed" this' last-cited case seems on the questionQf eqUity jurisdiction to be on all fours with the case in hand,'nnd as it is a decision of the aupreme'court of the United States, since ,approved many times, it should dccidt>. the nl:\tter.
MAltSHALL "tI.· 'rURti'·BULI..
827
The bulk of the bill is made up of charges that the defendants claim under a pretended and fictitious Frencllgrant,; which the land department at Washington has recognized; that this recbgnitionhinders the complainant in the exercise of his rights; that the government officers in the land departnlent are usurping jurisdiotion, and that iheiracts are void. And it is said by his counsel, "The main: source of equity jurisdiction herein-the backbone of equity jurisdiction-is that land-officers are of aspeoial quaBijudicialcharacter."The bill shows the action of the land, department to be against the complainant in rafusi1'lg to issue the usual patents to the state of Louisiana, and in favor or the defendants by deciding that the grant under which they claim is valid. The bill does not ask that these rulings shall be reversed or annulled,but does ask that they shall be and held for naught. These rulings take nothing away from thecomplaiuant's title, and add nothing to the" defendants', if,ns charged, the government officials in the land department have nojurisdiction, and sU<Jh rulings may be disregarded.at law as well as in equity. And the rule is the same whether the land-officers are of quam; or particular judicial character. or even were fully recognized coutts. In the case of Wright v. Roseherry; supra, the land department had gone so far as to issue to the defendants regular patents from the United States, and yet the !lupreme court of the United States saw in those void patents no hinderal'lCe to the plaintiffs fully recovering. the land in an action at law. And see Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104U. S. 640, 641. We have examined many cited authorities in this case,and have made some investigation of text-books Md cases not cited, and we can reach no other conclusion than that for all the matters charged in the bill thecomplainant has a plain, complete. and adequate remedy at law, and has no right to invoke the aid of equity.
MARSHALL
v.
TuRNBULL
et al. l
(O£rcuit Oourt, E. D. Nf/U) YO'I'k.
April 16, 1888.'
mJUNCTloN-JUlUsDICTION -PROPERTY CLAIMED THROUGH ACTS 01' A FonEIGN GoVERNMEJIi'l'. ' While this court. havingjnrisdiction of the person of &. defendant, may no
doubt enjoin him from wasting or interfering with property, or asserting title thereto,' though the property be situated in a foreign country, it will not grant such injunction. asked for on the sole ground that certain acts of the of· ficials of. a foreign government. creating defendant's title to the property. are alleged to be void. A bill askiug sitch relief on such ground is properly de· murrable. . A bill of complaint which does not set torth a copy of au instrument vital to complainant's .claim, or contain any averment setting forth the terms thereof, is demurrable. . ,
EQtJiTY-PLEADING-BrLL.
'Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., ofthe New York bar.