committed in decreeing it to be liable secondarily because in receiving the automobile it had acted in the capacity of a mere forwarder and had discharged its obligations in that respect. As to the decree which dismissed the Steamship Company, it was held that error had been committed because that company as an insurer was liable, not however exceeding the amount of $100, the limitation stated in the bill of lading. As the result of the allowance of a petition for certiorari the correctness of these conclusions is now before us for decision.

At the threshold it is insisted that the court below had no authority to consider the case as before it for a new trial, that is, de novo, and to award relief upon that theory, and that consequently it erred in reviewing the interlocutory decree which was not appealed from by which the Steamship Company was dismissed and allowing a recovery against that company, and also in reviewing both the interlocutory and final decrees so far as it was essential to grant relief to the Express Company because that company had not appealed. It is not denied that in the Second Circuit the right to a de novo trial was considered as settled by Munson S. S. Line v. Miramar S. S. Co., Limited, 167 Fed. Rep. 960, and that a well-established practice to that effect obtained, but it is insisted that a general review of the adjudged cases on the subject will show the want of foundation for the rule and practice. But we think this contention is plainly without merit and that the right to a de novo trial in the court below authoritatively resulted from the ruling in Irvine v. The Hesper, 122 U. S. 256,-a conclusion which is plainly demonstrated by the opinion in that case and the authorities there cited and the long continued practice which has obtained since that case was decided and the full and convincing review of the authorities on the subject contained in the opinion in the Miramar Case. Entertaining this view, we do not stop to consider the various arguments

which are here pressed upon our attention tending at least indirectly to establish the non-existence of the right to the trial de novo in the court below or that this case for reasons which are wholly unsubstantial may be distinguished and made an exception to the general rule, because to do so would serve no useful purpose and would be at least impliedly to admit that there was room to discuss a question concerning which there was no room for discussion whatever.

It is conceded that if the grounds relied upon to fix liability as against the Express Company, the Steamship Company and Hogan & Sons are established, there is a right to an independent recovery as to each, whatever may be the recourse of these parties to recover over as against each other. Which of the defendants, if any, was liable primarily for the loss, is then to be considered. We first approach this question from the point of view of Hogan & Sons, because undoubtedly that company was in possession and control of the car at the time it dropped into the river and was damaged. While there is some confusion and various slight contradictions in the testimony, we are of the opinion that the trial court was right in holding that the loss occurred through the fault of Hogan & Sons, and therefore that the court below erred in reversing the decree against that company. And without undertaking to review the testimony, to all of which we have given a careful consideration, we content ourselves with briefly pointing out the general points of view which have led us to the conclusion stated. Without saying that the mere fact of the dropping of the automobile into the water in the course of delivery from the ship's hold to the pier serves to speak for itself on the issue of responsibility, that is, to bring the case within the principle of res ipsa loquitur, we are of the opinion that by analogy the case well illustrates that rule for this reason: Some cause must be found for the dropping of the car into the river, and only

two theories on this subject may be deduced from the proof, either that the accident to the car occurred without fault as the result of the breaking of the rope composing the sling because of some unseen and hidden defect in such rope, or that it was occasioned by some act of negligence or want of care in handling the car. The first, we are of opinion, is without any substantial support in the proof; in fact, to accept it would conflict with direct and positive proof to the contrary. That view, therefore, could only be sustained by substituting imagination for proof. The second, on the contrary, we are of opinion, finds cogent support from the proof which could only be escaped by overthrowing it by the process of imagination to which we have just referred. It is unquestioned that when the sling was put around the box containing the car preparatory to attaching the hook in order to hoist it, no blocks or other means were used to prevent the rope from being worn or cut by the edges of the box. The presumption that the rope was strong and efficient, arising from the fact that it held the weight of the box until it was lifted above the hatch and until by the swinging motion the danger of straining or cutting of the ropes upon the edges was more likely to result, gives adequate ground for the inference that such cutting and straining occurred and led to the severance of the rope and the precipitation of the car into the water. And this inference is supported by various other circumstances which we do not stop to recapitulate.

Were the Steamship Company and the Express Company in the order stated liable to Reid, the libellant, dependent upon his inability to make under execution the amount of the decree from Hogan & Sons, is then the only remaining question. In substance this question, however, is negligible since in the argument at bar it was conceded that T. Hogan & Sons, Incorporated, were amply solvent and that there was no question of their ability

to respond to any decree which might be rendered against them. To avoid, however, all miscarriage of right from any possible, though improbable, change of conditions, without going into detail or stating the considerations which control our conclusion on the subject, we content ourselves with saying, first, that as to the Steamship Company we are of the opinion that on the failure to make the amount of the decree against Hogan & Sons, the libellant will be entitled to recover over against that company to the amount of $100, to which its liability was limited as stated in the bill of lading under which the shipment was made; second, that even looking upon the Express Company as a forwarder, under the circumstances of the case and the terms of the bill of lading under which the car was shipped by that company, the trial court rightly held it liable and that recovery against it on failure to enforce the decree against Hogan & Sons will also obtain.

It follows that the decree below must be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside its decree in so far as it dismissed the Steamship Company from the case and to enter a decree in conformity with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

LANCASTER v. KATHLEEN OIL COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA.

No. 336. Submitted April 26, 1916.-Decided June 12, 1916.

As one not in possession may not maintain an action to quiet title, and, as in Oklahoma, one may not maintain a suit in ejectment as lessee under an oil or gas mining lease, an adequate remedy at law

does not exist in this case; and therefore equity has jurisdiction of a suit brought by the holder of an oil and gas lease on lands in Oklahoma to restrain those claiming under another lease from interfering with the property.

If such leases cover Indian allottee land and have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior the case arises under the laws of the United States and a Federal court has jurisdiction.

A suit by one lessee against another, the prayer of the complaint in which is not only recovery of possession of the property but also an injunction restraining defendant from asserting rights under his lease, cannot be regarded as a mere suit for ejectment; and if the bill clearly shows that both plaintiff and defendant claim under leases of Indian lands, the validity of which depends upon the construction of Acts of Congress and the effect of approval given by the Secretary of the Interior, the case is one arising under the laws of the United States of which the District Court has jurisdiction.

In such a case the statements of the bill can determine the jurisdiction of the District Court as they are not mere anticipatory statements of a possible defense to be set up by defendant.

THE facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the District Court of a suit involving the validity of gas and oil leases on lands of allottee Indians, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. William F. Tucker and Mr. Hulette F. Aby for appellants.

Mr. George S. Ramsey, Mr. Edward H. Chandler, Mr. Edgar A. de Meules, Mr. Malcolm E. Rosser and Mr. Sol H. Kuffman for appellees.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

This direct appeal is prosecuted to reverse the decree of the court below dismissing the suit on the ground that the bill alleged no cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court as a Federal court.

Briefly summarized, the bill alleged that in 1903 Lizzie Brown received from the United States a patent to certain