Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/272

 STBETTELL V, BALLOU 257 �cannot, therefore, look to any state legislation as tl^e source of its jurisdiction in equity. In Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 658, Chief Jus- tice Marshall, speaking for the supreme court, thus stated the rule : "And the settled doctrine of this court is that the remedies in equity are to be administered, not according to the state practice, but ac- cording to the practice of courts of equity in the parent country, as contradistinguished from that of courts of law, subject, of course, to the provisions of the acts of congress, and to such alterations and rules as, in the exercise of the powers delegated in those acts, the courts of the United States may from time to time prescribe." And see, to the same effect, Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212; U. S. v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 115 ; Neves v. Scott, 13 How. 271; Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 499 ; Johnson v. Roe, 1 McCrary, 162.* It folio ws, from these authorities, that, unless the jurisdiction of this court can be derived from the constitution and laws of the United States alone, it does not exist. �Section 913 of the Revised Statutes of the United States declares that the modes of proceeding in equity causes shail be according to the principles, rules, and usages which belong to courts of equity, as contradistinguished from courts of law ; and this language refers to the principles, rules, and usages by which the high court of chancery of England was governed at the time the judiciary act was passed. �It is very clear that, according to the general principles of equity jurisprudence, as administered in England at the time of the passage of the judiciary act, and as administered by courts of chancery in this country, except where a different rule is adopted by statute, the holder of a mere possessory interest in land, and not having title there^o, cannot maintain a bill for partition. Such a bill must be filed by one having title to a portion of the promises sought to be par- titioned. Horncastle ■v.Charlesworth, 11 Simons, Ch. 314; Williams v. Wiggand, 53 111. 233; Ross v. Cobb, 48 111. 111. �It is not claimed that there is any act of congress eonferring upon this court jurisdiction in equity of a bill for partition brought by the owner of an undivided interest in a mining claim where the legal title to the real estate remains in the United States. It follows that this bill must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. If the statutes of the state of Colorado, relied upon by counsel for complainant, con- fer jurisdiction upon the courts of the state in a case of this charac- ter, the complainant must resort to those courts. �*S. C. 1 Ped. Rbp. 692. v.9,no.5— 17 ��� �