GENERAL OIL CO. ?. CRAIN. ?9 U.S. Opinion of the Court. consent." And it is hence insisted that the court by dlamissing the bill gave effect to the law which was attacked. It is further insisted that the bill undoubtedly presents fights under the Constitution of the United States and conditions which entitle plaintiff in error to an injunction for the protection of such rights, and that a statute of the State which operates to deny such rights, or such relief, "is itself in conflict with the Consti- tution of the United States." Plaintiff in error to sustain its contention that the suit is not one against the State, but one to restrain "unconstitutional aggression by a state officer upon private property, cites many cases in this court. To these cases defendant in error makes no other reply than to say that they were cases in the Federal courts and within the acknowledged range of the juris- diction of courts, while the question presented by the motion to dismiss is not the rights plaintiff in error may have, but what remedies it has and the power of the State over those remediss so far as its own courts are concerned. This difference is urged as material, and the following cases are adduced: ?qemp/e v. Ha?jar, 4. Wall. 431; Norton v. $helb? Cou?y, 118 U.S. 425; ?Sm?th v. Add/t, 16 Wall. 185, 190; Calle? v. Bran?/ord, 139 U.S. 197; Freeport Water Co. v. Freeport C?ty, 180 U.S. 587,. 601; Newnmn v. Gates, 204 U.S. 89, 95; Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 207 U.S. 142. A review of these c?es becomes necessary. In ?emple v. Hagar, Scruple had a patent from the United States for a certain tract of land. He sued Hagor to quiet his title, alleging that Hagor claimed the land under a fraudulent Mexican grant, and a patent of the United States issued in affirmance of the grant. Semple prayed that the grant be declared void "as issued upon false suggestion and without authority of law." Hagax tourred to the bill, on the ground, among others, that the court had no jurisdiction of the action. The demurrer was sustained and the case was brought to this court by writ of error. A motion to dismiss was made, which was granted. The court said: "We have here a very brief record, and, on the facts of
�
