UNITED STATES v. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO. 44? 209 U.S. Syllahu? in the controversy alleged to have been wholly between citi- zens of different States; and it was a decision which the court had a right to make, involving no abuse of judicial discretion. A premature review cannot be obtained by a writ of mandamus. Without expressing any opinion as to whether the State was a necessary party to the relief asked, which involved the re- movability of the case, this court bases its judgment on the mandamus entirely upon the ground that, as the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to pass upon the question of the removability of the case, and as its order overruling the motion to remand. was subject to be reviewed by a higher court after the case had been disposed of by final judgment, the remedy was by appeal and not by mandamus. Rulz discharged; petition dismissed. UNITED STATES v. CHANDLER-DUNBAR WATER POWER COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 599. Argued April 6, 7, 8, 1908.--Decided April 20, 19?8. Statut? of limitations with regard to land affect the right even if in term? only directed ugainst the remedy. The act of March 3, 1891, c. 561, � 26 Stat. 1099, providing that suits to vacate and annul patents thereto- fore issued shall only be brought within five years after the passage of the act, applies to a void patent, and where suit has not been brought within the prescribed period a patent of public lands, whether reserved or not, must be held good and to have the same effect as though valid in the first place. On the ?lm?on of Michigan to the Union the bed of the Sauit Ste. Marie, whether strait or river, passed to the State, and small unsm'veyed ialands therein became subjeer to the law of the State. By the law o! Michigan a grant of land bounded by a stream whether nav- igable in fact or not, carries with it the bed of the stream to the eenter of the thread thereof, and under ? rule the patentee of government
�
