to so divest any such private vested rights, but on the contrary it was alleged that it had been determined by the Supreme Court of California that said acts did not have such effect:

The answer denied that the city had ever interfered with the appellants in the use of the waters of the river or its tributaries, or the waters of said valley, except when such waters were located on or in the lands of the city or on or in lands on which the city had acquired the right of entry to divert and use said waters, except when the city has interfered with such use by judgments of court obtained by due process of law, and denied that the city has ever assumed or asserted the right to take physical control of any waters on or in complainants' lands. It was disclaimed that the acts or charters referred to in the bill granted to the city the right to take physical control of property belonging to complainants.

The answer denied that the acts of the legislature and the ordinances and charters of the city of Los Angeles, mentioned in the bill, or any of them, were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, or impaired the obligation of contracts, or were in violation of section 1979, Title XXIV, of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

The answer alleged that according to the proper construction of the act of March 3, 1851, the confirmation and patent therein provided for only had the effect of confirming to the confirmee and patentee the lands therein described, but subject to all the easements and servitudes imposed thereon by the laws of Spain and Mexico in favor of third parties, including the rights to the waters of unnavigable streams which were attached to other lands, or belonged to pueblos or private individuals other than the grantees. And where such water rights were appurtenant to lands granted by the Spanish and Mexican Governments and confirmed and patented under said act of Congress, such water rights passed by such patents, and a claim for such water rights was not required by such act to be confirmed or patented.

It was admitted that the city claimed that complainants had no right to the waters of the Los Angeles river, including the waters in other lands, as against the city and its inhabitants, when the city shall determine that it needs said waters, and that the city claims that the use by the complainants of such waters is at the sufferance of the city, and may be prohibited by the city at any time, and that the city is threatening to institute suits against complainants for the purpose of enforcing such claims, but it is denied that any and all said claims or any dominion or control which the city has exercised over the river and the waters thereof has cast any cloud upon the several titles of complainants to their lands or affected the market value or salability of such lands.

It was alleged in the answer that in the year 1781 a pueblo was founded on the site of the present city of Los Angeles by the Government of the Kingdom of Spain, and that, according to the laws and regulations of that country, said pueblo became entitled to the sole and exclusive right in perpetuity to the absolute ownership of all the waters of the Los Angeles river, whether flowing upon or beneath the surface of the ground; that said river then rose and now rises several miles above the site of the pueblo and ran and still runs down through said site to the lands now embraced within the city of Los Angeles; that during the whole of the occupation and control of said pueblo by the Spanish and Mexican Governments the municipal authorities at all times exercised control of and claimed the exclusive right to use all the waters of said river, and that right was during all of said time recognized and acknowledged by the owners of all of the lands bordering on said river, including the predecessors of complainants; that ever since the occupation and control of said pueblo by the United States and by the State of California the municipal authorities of the city have exercised the same rights over and to the waters of the river as were previously exercised and claimed by the authorities of the pueblo, and that such control and rights were exercised and claimed for the purpose of irrigation

and for the domestic and other uses of said pueblo and said city and the inhabitants thereof.

It was further alleged that within one year after the foundation of the pueblo the municipal authorities thereof constructed a system of irrigation works and conveyed the waters of the river to and upon lands in the pueblo, and that thereafter from time to time other lands of the pueblo were brought under irrigation, so that all of said waters were diverted from said river and used for such irrigation during a period of many years prior to the conquest of California by the United States, and that, from and after such conquest, the same use was made of the waters of the river for the irrigation of lands within the pueblo and for domestic use of its inhabitants up to the time of the passage of the act of April 4, 1850, incorporating the city of Los Angeles; that from and after that time the municipal authorities of said city continued to construct additional works for the more economical diversion and distribution of such waters for use in irrigating lands within said city and for domestic use of the inhabitants thereof; that within the past eighteen years nearly all of said irrigable lands have been divided into building lots and covered with houses, so that all of the waters previously used for the irrigation of said lands, excepting the portion thereof which has been diverted by complainants within the last five years, have been used by the city and its inhabitants for purposes other than for irrigation, and all of the waters of said river during the dry season of each year, extending from the first day of May to the first day of November, and a great portion of said waters during the rest of the year, have been needed for said uses. That the population of said city is not less than 180,000 people, and is increasing at the rate of more than 10,000 per year, and that the city has no other source of water supply except said river.

It was alleged that, with certain exceptions referred to therein, the pueblo of Los Angeles, from the time of its foundation in the year 1781, up to the incorporation of the pueblo as a

city by the act of 1850, and the said city from that time until now has continuously, exclusively and adversely to the whole world used all of the waters of the Los Angeles river under a claim of ownership of said waters, the exceptions referred to being claims made by certain persons at various times of rights to the use of the waters of the river and of affluents thereof, which have been litigated and decided by the state courts in favor of the city, and it was further alleged that within the past twelve years certain owners of lands in which flowed underground waters of the river have set up a claim that said waters were not a part of the river and that they were entitled to take and appropriate said underground waters for their own use, and that, in pursuance of such claims, great numbers of said parties, including some of complainants, had constructed wells and engaged in pumping large quantities of said water, thereby diminishing the surface flow of the river, and that it was for the purpose of preventing such diminution that the city was bringing and contemplated bringing the actions against complainants referred to in the bill; that within the past five years such abstraction of these underground waters did not interfere with the supply of water required by the city, but within the past three years the amount of diversion by means of said wells has increased so much and the needs of the city and its inhabitants have also so greatly increased that the waters of the river which reached the surface stream thereof and the underground diversion works of the city have not been sufficient to supply it and its inhabitants with the water needed by them.

It was also alleged that the city in its corporate name or in the name of the board of water commissioners is the owner of numerous tracts of land which are riparian to the river, and which are particularly described in the answer. And further, that in the year 1879 two actions were commenced by predecessors of some of complainants against the city of Los Angeles, claiming the right to divert and use waters of the river, and both of said actions were finally determined by the Supreme

Argument for Appellants.

202 U.S.

Court of the State of California against the plaintiffs and in favor of the city, and it was alleged that complainants, who are successors in interests of the plaintiffs in the suits last mentioned, are by said judgments estopped to deny that the city is the owner of a paramount right to use so much of the waters of the Los Angeles river as it and its inhabitants may need.

Thereafter the city of Los Angeles, by its counsel, moved the court to dismiss this cause on the ground that it appeared that the court had no jurisdiction thereof, which motion was sustained and the bill dismissed, whereupon the cause was brought here on certificate.

Mr. Cyrus F. McNutt, with whom Mr. Warren E. Lloyd and Mr. J. E. Harmon were on the brief, for appellants:

The bill presents several Federal questions. It is not an action under § 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure of California to quiet title generally, but a bill in equity to remove clouds from complainants' titles. However that section is construed by the California courts, as providing an exclusive remedy for quieting titles to land, the legislature and the courts of the State cannot affect the equity practice and jurisdiction in the Federal courts.

The original jurisdiction in equity, conferred by the Constitution, imposes the duty to adjudicate according to the rules of the English Chancery Court, as administered from the time of the emigration of our ancestors, down to the period when the Constitution was formed. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling &c. Bridge Co., 18 How. 492. The equity jurisdiction of the Federal courts is the same as the English High Court of Chancery, and is not subject to limitation or restraint of state legislation. Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 430.

Equity practice and jurisdiction of Federal courts is uniform throughout the United States, and cannot be varied by state laws. Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 147.

The act of 1872, requiring pleading and procedure in civil causes in the Circuit and District Courts to conform, as near