HANNAH CANARD BARNETT and Tucker K. Barnett, Appts., V. Mr. Lewis C. Lawson argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Francis Stewart and Malcolm E. Rosser, filed a brief for ap W. A. KUNKEL and the Prairie Oil & Gas pellants. 3. A decree of a United States circuit court of appeals affirming a decree of the district court, the jurisdiction of which is invoked on the sole ground of diverse citizenship of the parties, cannot be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States for review by appeal. [For other cases, see Appeal and Error, I. d. 1. in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] [No. 134.] Messrs. Lewis C. Lawson, Malcolm E. Rosser, Charles A. Moon, and Francis Stewart filed a separate brief for appellants. Mr. Preston C. West argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Thomas J. Flannelly and Alexander A. Davidson, filed a brief for appellees. Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the court: W. A. Kunkel, a citizen of Indiana, began this suit in the United States district court for the eastern district of Oklahoma to quiet title to 160 acres of land in that district, and made defendants Hannah C. Barnett, her husband, Tucker K. Barnett, and others, all citizens of Oklahoma, residing in the district. In his amended bill the complainant averred that he deraigned his title from one Mehaley Watson, a Creek citizen, to whom was allotted the land in question; that a patent was issued in her name, signed by the principal chief of the Creek Nation, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior; that she died in October, 1908, before the issue of the patent in March, 1909; that she was an illegitimate child of the de Argued January 4, 1924. Decided February fendant Hannah C. Barnett, a Creek of A 18, 1924. PPEAL by defendants from a decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, affirming a decree of the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma in favor of complainant in a suit to quiet title to certain real estate. Dis missed. the full blood, who was her heir and inherited the land in question; that on March 22, 1909, in consideration of $500, the mother executed and delivered a warranty deed for the tract to one B. O. Sims; that, on the same day, the deed to Sims was approved by the county court of Hughes county, Oklahoma,the court having jurisdiction to settle the estate of Mehaley Watson, deceased; See same case below, 283 Fed. 24. that Sims conveyed to Brannan; that The facts are stated in the opinion. Brannan conveyed to Berrian and others, Note.-Generally as to diverse citizen- from whom, by some eleven mesne conship as ground of Federal jurisdiction-veyances, the details of which were set see notes to Seddon v. Virginia, T. & C. Steel & I. Co. 1 L.R.A. 108; Myers v. Murray, N. & Co. 11 L.R.A. 216; Roberts v. Lewis, 36 L. ed. U. S. 579; Emory v. Greenough, 1 L. ed. U. S. 640; Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 2 L. ed. U. S. 435; and M'Donald v. Smalley, 7 L. ed. U. S. 287. On appellate jurisdiction of Federal Supreme Court over circuit courts of appeals-see notes to Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co. 53 L. ed. U. S. 605, and St. Anthony's Church v. Penn- | sylvania R. Co. 59 L. ed. U. S. 1119. out in the bill, the land was conveyed, in March, 1913, to one R. S. [18] Litchfield; that, the question then having arisen whether Mehaley Watson was not a resident of Okfuskee county, instead of Hughes county, when she died, Mrs. Barnett and her husband filed their petition in the county court of Okfuskee county, asking approval of her deed of March, 1909, to B. O. Sims, and obtained the approval of that court accordingly, in consideration of $2,000 paid her by Litchfield; that Sims, on the same day, made and delivered a quitclaim deed of 539 decisions of this court on this subject,, to the opinion already filed herein the it is not necessary to argue the prop- following: osition that the mere assertion of a title to land derived to the plaintiffs, under and by virtue of a patent granted by the United States, presents no question which, of itself, confers jurisdiction on a circuit court of the United States. Blackburn v. Portland Gold Min. Co. 175 U. S. 571, 44 L. ed. 276, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 222, 20 Mor. Min. Rep. 358." The subject is discussed and cogent reasons for the rule are given in Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569, 56 L. ed. 1205, 1210, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 704. See also Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74, 58 L. ed. 1218, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 724; Shoshone Min. Co. v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 505, 44 L. ed. 864, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 726; De Lamar's Nevada Gold Min. Co. v. Nesbitt, 177 U. S. 523, 44 L. ed. 872, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 715. "The third section of the Act of Congress, approved June 25th, 1910, chap. 408, 36 Stat. at L. 836, was repealed by the last paragraph of § 297 of the Judicial Code, approved March 3, 1911, chap. 231, 36 Stat. at L. 1087, 1169, Comp. Stat. § 1274, 5 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 1087." The petition for rehearing is denied. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 22-29.) Appeal ment. time what is final judg 1. Where a state statute provides that the decision of the supreme court of the state shall be final, but that judgment shall issue thereon, the issuance of the judgment, and not the filing of the decision, fixes the date within three months from which steps must be taken under the Act of September of the United States. 6, 1916, for review in the Supreme Court [For other cases, see Appeal and Error, IV. d, Had the bill of complaint in this case averred that the suit arose under the laws of the United States because [21] Hannah Barnett insisted that her deed to Sims was void under the statutes of the United States, and so had created a cloud upon complainant's title by her subsequent leases and contracts, the district court could have taken jurisdiction on that ground alone. Hopkins v. Walker, 244 U. S. 486, 490, 61 L. ed. 1270, 1274, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 711; Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Co. 241 U. S. 551, 60 L. ed. 1161, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 711; Wilson Cypress Co. v. Del Pozo y Marcos, 236 U. S. 635, 643, 644, 59 L. ed. 758, 761, 766, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 446. But nothing of this kind appeared in the bill, and the development of the real Federal issues in the answer or on the trial could not sup-court. ply the defect in the original jurisdic-[For other cases, see Appeal and Error, 1249tion of the suit, as one arising under the laws of the United States. It being established that the sole ground for jurisdiction in the District Court was diverse citizenship, the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the decree of the District Court on appeal, was final (§ 128, Judicial Code), and can only be reviewed in this court by writ of certiorari, under § 240, Judicial Code. Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 56 L. ed. 1205, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 704. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The following addition to the opinion was announced by Mr. Chief Justice Taft on March 17, 1924: The court orders that there be added 3. a, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Appeal raising Federal question for first time on appeal. for the first time before the Supreme Court 2. A Federal question cannot be raised of the United States, even by one who joins in the assignment of errors with a party who did raise the question in the trial 1318. in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Note. On the general subject of writs of error from United States Supreme Court to state courts-see notes to Martin v. Hunter, 4 L. ed. U. S. 97; Williams v. Norris, 6 L. ed. U. S. 571; Hamblin v. Western Land Co. 37 L. ed. U. S. 267; Kipley v. Illinois, 42 L. ed. U. S. 998; and Re Buchanan, 39 L. ed. U. S. 884. On what adjudications of state courts can be brought up for review in the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error to those courts-see note to Apex Transp. Co. v. Garbade, 62 L.R.A. 513. On how and when questions must be raised and decided in a state court in order to make a case for a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States-see note to Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 63 L.R.A. 33. Constitutional law railways as personalty. equal protection of individuals, and assessed and taxed classifying easements of street as personal property, and thereby denied. the privileges and immunities accorded by the Constitution and the statutes of the state to such other real estate and its owners, is in conflict with the 14th Amendment. 3. Classifying the street easements of street railway companies as personalty for purposes of taxation, which accelerates time of payment of tax, increases the penalty for delinquency, and denies redemption after sale, when the real estate of steam railroads is not so classified, does not unconstitutionally deny street railway companies the equal protection of the laws. [For other cases, see Constitutional Law, IV. a, 3 and 4, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Courts cision. conclusiveness of state de 4. The decision of the highest court of a state as to the validity of a state statute on the Supreme Court of the United States. [For other cases, see Courts. VII. c. 3, in under the state Constitution is conclusive Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] [No. 138.] Submitted on motion to dismiss or affirm 1924. Northern P. R. Co. v. Franklin County, 118 Wash. 117, 203 Pac. 7; Malin v. Benthien, 114 Wash. 539, 196 Pac. 7; State v. Robinson Co. 84 Wash. 246, 146 Pac. 628; Re Camp, 38 Wash. 393, 80 Pac. 547; Johnson v. Wells, F. & Co. 239 U. S. 234, 237, 238, 60 L. ed. 243, 246, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 62; Ewert v. Taylor, 38 S. D. 124, 160 N. W. 804; State ex rel. Owen v. Donald, 161 Wis. 188, 153 N. W. 238; Atlanta & F. R. Co. v. Wright, 87 Ga. 487, 13 S. E. 578; Malone v. Williams, 118 Tenn. 390, 121 Am. St. Rep. 1002, 103 S. W. 807; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369, 30 L. ed. 220, 226, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Pembina Consol. Silver Min. & Mill. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 188, 31 ON WRIT of Error to the Supreme L. ed. 650, 653, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 24, See same case below, 117 Wash. 351, 201 Pac. 449, 207 Pac. 689. Court of Washington to review a 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 737; Gulf, C. & S. F. judgment affirming a judgment of the R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 159, 41 Superior Court for King County, dis- L. ed. 666, 669, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; missing a complaint filed to restrain the Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. collection of taxes. Affirmed. 400, 417, 54 L. ed. 536, 541, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247; Greene v. Louisville & Interurban R. Co. 244 U. S. 499, 516, 518, 61 L. ed. 1280, 1289, 1290, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 88; Taylor v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 31 C. C. A. 537, 60 U. S. App. 166, 88 Fed. 365; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 66 L. ed. 254, 27 A.L.R. 375, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124; Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441, The Act of February 21, 1911, amend- 67 L. ed. 340, 28 A.L.R. 979, 43 Sup. ing the Act of March 6, 1907, whereby Ct. Rep. 190; Ward v. Love County, 253 real estate owned in fee by a street U. S. 17, 22, 64 L. ed. 751, 758, 40 Sap. railroad company was singled out from Ct. Rep. 419; Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. the real estate of other corporations and | Indiana, 194 U. S. 579, 589, 48 L. ed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Messrs. James B. Howe, Frederic D. McKenney, Thomas J. L. Kennedy, Walter B. Beals, and Walter F. Meier submitted the cause for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. Hugh A. Tait, Edgar L. Crider, Norwood W. Brockett, and Edwin C. Ewing were on the brief: When Federal question is raised in time to sustain appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court over state courts-see notes to Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. McGuire, 49 L. ed. U. S. 414, and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. 67 L. ed. U. S. 557. As to what judgments or decrees are final for purposes of review-see notes to Gibbons v. Ogden, 5 L. ed. U. S. 302; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 49 L. ed. U. S. 1001; and Detroit & M. R. Co. v. Michigan R. Commission, 60 L. ed. U. S. 802. As to the validity of class legislation generally-see notes to State v. Goodwill, 6 L.R.A. 621, and State v. Loomis, 21 L.R.A. 789. As to constitutional equality of privileges, immunities, and protection generally-see note to Louisville Safety Vault & T. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 14 L.R.A. 579. As to state decisions and laws as rules of decision in Federal courts-see notes to Elmendorf v. Taylor, 6 L. ed. U. S 290; Jackson ex dem. St. John v. Chew, 6 L. ed. U. S. 583; United States ex rel. Butz v. Muscatine, 19 L. ed. U. S. 490; Clark v. Graham, 5 L. ed. U. S. 334; Mitchell v. Burlington, 18 L. ed. U. S. 351; Forepaugh v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 5 L.R.A. 508; and Snare & T. Co. v. Friedman, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 380. The attempted assessment without jurisdiction, and the blending of real estate owned in fee with personal property, and the assessment of both classes of property as personal property and in a lump sum, violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 1124, 1129, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 767; Union, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Central of Georgia P. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, R. Co. v. Wright, 207 U. S. 127, 52 L. 248 U. S. 67, 69, 63 L. ed. 131, 132, ed. 134, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47, 12 Ann. P.U.R.1919B, 315, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24; Cas. 463; Turner v. Wade, 254 U. S. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325, 64, 65 L. ed. 134, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27; 18 L. ed. 356, 363; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U. S. 37, 55, 64 L. ed. 445, 457, 40 Sup. U. S. 413, 425, 59 L. ed. 1027, 1032, 35 Ct. Rep. 221; Samish Gun Club v. Skagit | Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Northern P. R. Co. County, 118 Wash. 580, 204 Pac. 181; v. Carland, 5 Mont. 146, 3 Pac. 134. State ex rel. Nettleton v. Case, 39 Wash. 181, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 152, 109 Am. St. Rep. 874, 81 Pac. 554; Spokane & E. Trust Co. v. Spokane County, 70 Wash. 52, 126 Pac. 54, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 641; Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co. 207 U. S. 20, 37, 52 L. ed. 78, 87, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, 12 Ann. Cas. 757; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 32, 28 L. ed. 923, 925, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U. S. 56, 59 L. ed. 1199, L.R.A.1915E, 953, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 675; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (Cotting v. Godard) 183 U. S. 79, 46 L. ed. 92, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30; Missouri v. Lewis (Bowman v. Lewis) 101 U. S. 22, 25 L. ed. 989; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 42 L. ed. 1037, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Ames v. Union P. R. Co. 64 Fed. 177; F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415, 64 L. ed. 989, 990, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 560; Pennsyl Cooley, Taxn. 3d ed. p. 597; New York v. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539, 25 L. ed. 705; Northern P. R. Co. v. Carland, supra; San Mateo County v. Southern P. R. Co. 8 Sawy. 238, 13 Fed. 722; San Francisco & N. P. R. Co. v. Dinwiddie, 8 Sawy. 312, 13 Fed. 789; Santa Clara County v. Southern P. R. Co. 9 Sawy. 165, 18 Fed. 385, 118 U. S. 394, 30 L. ed. 118, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132; San Bernardino County v. Southern P. R. Co. 118 U. S. 417, 30 L. ed. 125, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1144; California v. Central P. R. Co. 127 U. S. 1, 32 L. ed. 150, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073. Messrs. Howard A. Hanson and Malcolm Douglas submitted the cause for defendants in error: The tax is a valid exercise of the state's taxing power, and violates no provision of the Federal Constitution. vania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 67 L, ed. 322, 28 A.L.R. 1321, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 158; Reagan v. Farmers Loan Moeller v. Gormley, 44 Wash. 465, & T. Co. 154 U. S. 362, 390, 38 L. ed. 87 Pac. 507; Metropolitan Bldg. Co. v. 1014, 1021, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 560, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1047; Kansas City South-King County, 62 Wash. 410, 113 Pac. ern R. Co. v. Road Improv. Dist. 256 1114, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 943; Northern U. S. 658, 661, 65 L. ed. 1151, 1157, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 604; Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount Auto Exch. Corp. 262 U. S. 544, 67 L. ed. 1112, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 636; Southern R. Co. v. Watts, 260 U. S. 519, 67 L. ed. 375, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192; Pueblo County v. Wilson, 15 Colo. 90, 24 Pac. 563; Graham v. Chautauqua County, 31 Kan. 473, 2 Pac. 549. The Act of 1907, as amended by the Act of 1911, as construed and enforced, violates the 14th Amendment. P. R. Co. v. State, 84 Wash. 539, P.U.R. 1915C, 232, 147 Pac. 45, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 1166; Nathan v. Spokane County, 35 Wash. 31, 65 L.R.A. 336, 102 Am. St. Rep. 888, 76 Pac. 521; Johnson v. Roberts, 102 Ill. 659; Central Iowa R. Co. v. Wright County, 67 Iowa, 199, 25 N. W. 129; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Labette County, 9 Kan. App. 545, 59 Pac. 384; State ex rel. Morton v. Back, 72 Neb. 402, 69 L.R.A. 447, 100 N. W. 952; Chicago, & N. W. R. Co. v. State, 128 McFarland v. American Sugar Ref. Wis. 553, 108 N. W. 557; Bloxham v. Co. 241 U. S. 79, 85, 60 L. ed. 899, 36 Consumers' Electric Light & Street R. Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; Detroit, G. H. & M. Co. 36 Fla. 519, 29 L.R.A. 511, 51 Am. R. Co. v. Fuller, 205 Fed. 89; Cooley, St. Rep. 44, 18 So. 444; Michigan C. Const. Lim. 391; State v. Julow, 129 R. Co. v. Porter, 17 Ind. 380; Portland, Mo 163, 29 L.R.A. 257, 50 Am. St. Rep. 443, 31 S. W. 781; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 373, 30 L. ed. 220, 227, S. & P. R. Co. v. Saco, 60 Me. 196; Oskaloosa Water Co. v. Board of Equalization, 84 Iowa, 407, 15 L.R.A. 295, |