14 FEDERAL ‘1zm>on·rmn.
real or supposed secret equity of Hubbard, and also obtained from
Knab,_for a like consideration, a transfer of the legal’ title, and there-
upon filed his bill against Orton inthe federal court, under the Wis-
consin statute, to quiet his title. While Smith was the holder of the
legal and equitable title to the land, he had acquired this title for a
mere nominal consideration, while Orton’s suit against Knab in the
state court,·_for specinc performance of the covenants to the latter’s _
bond, was pending. Having reference to these facts, and touching a
title so acquired, the court said:
" Those only who have a clear, legal, and equitable title to land connected S
with possession, have any right to claim the interference of a court of equity
to give them peace, or dissipate a cloud on the title. The complainant in
this case is the volunteer purchaser of a litigious claim; he is the assignee of
a secret equity for apparently a mere nominal [consideration, and of the bare
legal title for a like consideration. This legal title was improperly assigned
to him, during the pendency of a suit in chancery to ascertain the person
justly entitled to it."-
The manifest sense of the opinion, when read in the light of these
facts, is that there was such a want of consideration, conscience, and
good _faith in the acquisition of Smith’s title, that a court of equity
would not lend "him its aid against a bonajide purchaser for value of
an equitable title. ·, The question of possession was not mooted. The
word occurs but once in the opinion, and then casually. There was
no fact or issue in the case making it necessary or proper to decide
whether the jurisdiction in equity, independently of any statute, to re-
move a cloud from title is restricted to those only who have a clear,
legal, and equitable title, and actual possession of the land. This is
made clear by the factithat the court, in enumerating the defects and
weaknesses in the plaiutiifs case, does not mention want of posses-
» _ sion as one of them; On the facts of the case the court refused to
treat the plaintiff as the bonajide owner of the legal or equitable title.
The court say he acquired his title without any valuable consider-
ation, and that the "legal title was improperly assigned to him during
thependency of a suit in chancery to ascertain the person justly
entitled to it." These Endings were fatal to the plaintiffs case. It
was upon these grounds, and the further ground that a court of the
United States should not entertain a bill of peace upon a title already
in litigation ina state court, that the case was decided and the bill
» dismissed. I
What is said by the court in Branch v. Mitchell, supra, is appro-
· priate here: r ` A
f'The language of the court is always to be understood by applying it to
the facts of the case decided. That which seems to be general and of uni-
versal “applicati.on, has,·.in reality, often a limited application; and so the
- words of truth and thetutterances of the law, undeniable in the case wherein
they are spoken, become the parents of error and false doctrine. " ·
f.It— isnext objected that section 5206 of Gantt’s Digest declares that
tax deeds shall be Wconclusive evidence" of the regularity of every-
l