800 FEDERAL REFOBXKB. �DUNCAN V. GbEENWALT.* [Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. March 21, 1882.) �1. Courts oi- Equity — Jurisdictioii — Pbactice — Statutort Actions. �Where the statutes of a state, in which the distinction between actions in cbancery and suits at law is abolished, provide for a particular action, the question whether a federal court held in that state should regard that action, wlien brought before it, as legal or equitable, must depend upon the facts stated and the relief sought. If the suit appears to be in the nature of a suit in equity, it should go upon the equity calendar, and be proceeded with in accord- ance with the equity rulea. �2. Same—Same— Action to Quiet Title. �Courts of equity have jurisdiction over suits to quiet the title to real estate. �In Equity. �This is a bill in equity filed by the complainant to quiet the title to certain real estate, situated in the city of St. Louis, by removing a cloud therefrom, caused, as is alleged, by the execution to the de- fendant's grantor of a certain tax deed. It is alleged that the pre- tended tax sale, and the deed executed in pursuance thereof, were void because of the failure to comply with the provisions of the stat- uts of Missouri concerning tax sales. The respondent demurs to the bill upon the ground that under certain statutes of Missouri the com- plainant bas a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. �JE. Cunningham, Jr., for complainant. �E. R. Monk, for respondent. �McCraby, C. J., (orally.) The bill as it now stands is plainly a bill to quiet title to the real estate in controversy by removing a cloud therefrom, and it is properly brought upon the equity side of the court, in accordance with long-established rules, unless it be true, as claimed by counsel for the respondent, that a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law is provided by certain statutes of Missouri. The first of these is section 6852 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, which provides as follows : �" Any person hereafter putting a tax deed on record in the proper county sliall be deemed to have set up such a title to the land described therein as shall enable the party claiming to own the same land to maintain an action for the recovery of the possession thereof against the grantee in deed, or any person claiming under him, whether such grantee or person is in actual poses- Bion of the land or not." �Counsel for the respondent is in error in insisting that a remedy given by statute is necessarily a remedy at law. The Code of Mis- �♦lleported by B. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar. ��� �
