Opinion of the Court.

the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts adjudged that question adversely to the plaintiffs it would be the duty of this court to consider the soundness of such a judgment.

"The record, however, further discloses that William T. Eustis, represented in this court by his executors, had accepted and receipted for the money which had been awarded him, as his portion, under the insolvency proceedings, and that the court below, conceding that his cause of action could not be taken away from him, without his consent, by proceedings under statutes of insolvency passed subsequently to the vesting of his rights, held that the action of Eustis, in so accepting and receipting for his dividend in the insolvency proceedings, was a waiver of his right to object to the validity of the insolvency statutes, and that, accordingly, the defendants were entitled to the judgment.

"The view of the court was that, when the composition was confirmed, Eustis was put to his election whether he would. avail himself of the composition offer, or would reject it and rely upon his right to enforce his debt against his debtors notwithstanding their discharge.

"In its discussion of this question the court below cited and claimed to follow the decision of this court in the case of Clay v. Smith, 3 Pet. 411, where it was held that the plaintiff, by proving his debt and taking a dividend under the bankrupt laws of Louisiana, waived his right to object that the law did not constitutionally apply to his debt, he being a creditor residing in another State. But in deciding that it was competent for Eustis to waive his legal rights, and that as accepting his dividend under the insolvency proceedings was such a waiver, the court below did not decide a Federal question. Whether that view of the case was sound or not, it is not for us to inquire. It was broad enough, in itself, to support the final judgment, without reference to the Federal question."

Eustis had a right which was protected by the Constitution of the United States. This right, the state court held, he had waived by his action, and this court said whether the state court was right or not, was not a Federal question.

In Seneca Nation v. Christy, 162 U. S. 283, it was held by

Syllabus.

the state court that even if there were a right of recovery on the part of the plaintiffs in error because the grant of 1826 was in contravention of the Constitution of the United States (which the court held was not the case), yet that such recovery was barred by the New York statute of limitations. This court held that as the judgment of the state court could be maintained upon the latter ground, it was without jurisdiction because the decision of the state court upon that ground involved no Federal question.

In this case there being two distinct grounds upon which the judgment of the state court was based, each of which is sufficient, and one of which involves no Federal question, we must, upon the authority of the cases above cited, hold that this court is without jurisdiction, and the writ of error must be Dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE Were of opinion that the decree should be affirmed.

PIERCE v. AYER, error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine. No. 13. Argued with No. 12.

This writ of error is controlled by the decision in the case just announced. The writ will, therefore, be

Dismissed.

ST. LOUIS MINING AND MILLING COMPANY v. MONTANA MINING COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA.

No. 305. Submitted October 10, 1898. Decided October 31, 1898.

The court again holds that when there is color for a motion to dismiss on the ground that no Federal question was involved in a judgment of a state court, this court may, under a motion to dismiss or affirm, dispose of the case.

When a location is made of a mining claim, the area becomes segregated from the public domain and the property of the locator, and he may sell

Statement of the Case.

it, mortgage it or part with the whole or any portion of it as he may see fit; and a contract for such sale is legal and will be enforced by the

court.

Where an application to enter a mining claim embraces land claimed by another, the latter is under no obligation to file an adverse claim; but he may make a valid settlement with the applicant by contract, which can be enforced against him after he obtains his patent.

THIS was a suit for specific performance brought by the Montana Mining Company against the St. Louis Mining and Milling Company of Montana and Charles Mayger in the district court of the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the county of Lewis and Clarke.

The complaint alleged that on March 7, a.d. 1884, plaintiff's predecessors in interest, Robinson, Huggins, Sterling, De Camp and Eddy, were the owners of, and in possession, and legally entitled to the use, occupation and possession, of a certain portion of the Nine Hour Lode and Mining Claim, which embraced in all an area of 12,844.5 feet, together with the minerals therein contained.

That Mayger applied to the United States land office at Helena for a patent to the St. Louis Lode Mining Claim, owned by him, and that in the survey he caused to be made of his claim he included that part of the Nine Hour Lode Mining Claim described in the complaint, whereupon an action was commenced by Robinson and Huggins against Mayger in the district court of the Third Judicial District of the then Territory of Montana to determine the right to the possession of the particular premises. That on said seventh of March, for the purpose of settling and compromising that action, and settling and agreeing upon the boundary lines between the Nine Hour Lode Mining Claim and the St. Louis Lode Mining Claim, Mayger made, executed and delivered to Robinson, Huggins and Sterling a certain bond for a deed, whereby, in consideration of the compromise and settlement of the action and the withdrawal of the protest and adverse claim, he covenanted and agreed that when he should obtain a patent as applied for, he would, on demand, make, execute and deliver to Robinson, Huggins and Sterling, or their assigns, a good

Statement of the Case.

and sufficient deed for the premises described in the complaint; and thereupon Robinson, Huggins and Sterling dismissed their said action, withdrew their adverse claim, and performed all of the conditions of the bond on their part.

That Mayger then proceeded with his application and obtained a patent, but that he gave no notice to plaintiff, or any of its predecessors in interest, of the obtaining of the patent until some time in November, 1889.

That when the bond for a deed was executed, plaintiff's predecessors in interest were in possession of the premises, and have ever since been and are yet in possession thereof, holding and using the same as a part of the Nine Hour Lode Claim; that by mesne conveyances the title to this claim, including the portion in dispute in this suit, had come to plaintiff; that it is entitled to a conveyance of the premises from Mayger; that Mayger, on or about June 10, 1893, assumed to convey said piece of ground to the St. Louis Mining and Milling Company, which then had full knowledge and notice of the making, execution and delivery of the bond for a deed by Mayger, and of the rights and equities of the Montana Mining Company thereunder; that the St. Louis Company has instituted a number of suits in the Circuit Court of the United States, in which it claims that it is the owner of the premises described in the complaint, and also the right to recover certain sums of money for ores alleged to have been wrongfully extracted therefrom. The bond referred to was appended to the complaint. The prayer was that the court should decree that defendants should convey to plaintiff a good and sufficient deed to the premises in controversy.

The answer denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and affirmatively alleged that the adverse claim interposed to the application of Mayger for a patent was for the purpose of harassing and hindering Mayger in obtaining a patent to his mining claim, and that the bond was given contrary to equity, good conscience and public policy.

The case was tried by the district court without a jury, and the court made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. It was found that plaintiff's predecessors in interest

Statement of the Case.

were at the time mentioned in the complaint the owners of, in possession, and entitled to the possession, of the Nine Hour Lode Mining Claim as described, and that the strip of ground in dispute was at the time and continued to be a part of said claim; that the bond was executed and delivered by Mayger to the parties therein named, binding Mayger to convey to them or their assigns the ground in question when Mayger obtained a patent therefor; that it was given as a compromise and settlement of the controversy as to the land now in dispute, and then in litigation between the parties, and for the purpose of fixing and determining the boundary line between the Nine Hour Lode Mining Claim and the St. Louis Mining Claim, as alleged in the complaint, and that Mayger thereafterwards did obtain a patent covering the premises in dispute; that plaintiffs in the adverse mining suit, on the execution to them of the bond by Mayger, dismissed their action and performed all the conditions of the contract on their part; that at the time of the execution of the bond the predecessors of plaintiff were in actual possession of the ground in dispute, and that they and plaintiff have ever since remained in possession thereof, claiming and holding the same as a part of the Nine Hour Lode Mining Claim; that at the date of the execution and delivery of the bond, it was expressly agreed between the parties thereto that all of the ground lying to the east of the westerly line of the strip should be a portion of the Nine Hour Lode Mining Claim; that plaintiff is the successor in interest of Robinson, Huggins and Sterling, the obligees named in the bond, and also of De Camp and Eddy, who were cotenants with said obligees in the premises at the date of the execution of the bond; that the mesne conveyances introduced in evidence on the part of plaintiff embraced and were intended to include the ground in question, and conveyed to the grantees therein named all of the interest, legal and equitable, which the grantor or grantors had in said premises, covering as well their interest in the ground in dispute as in every other part and parcel of the Nine Hour Lode Mining Claim.

That in July, 1893, plaintiff duly demanded a deed to the