delivered the opinion of the court.
This wаs a petitory action for real property, or an action of ejectment, brought by the heirs of Gonsoulin, plaintiffs in error, against the Gulf Cоmpany, defendant in error, in the District Court of St. Mary’s Parish, Louisiana, where thе land was situated. The petition alleged that a grant or concеssion by the Spanish Government was originally made to Dubuclet, St. Clair and Gonsоulin in 1783, and that the interest of Dubuclet and St. Clair were conveyed to the heirs of Gonsoulin after 1808.
That the United States Government issued a patent to the heirs of Gonsoulin, and that petitioners’ “claim by said grant and conсession covering said lands, dates back to the year seventeеn hundred and eighty-three or thereabouts, and said concession was recognized and confirmed by .the'United States Government after proрer and legal surveys had defined the boundaries and segregated said grants.”
That said lands were “now in the possession of and illegally detained and held by the Gulf Company, a body corporate organized under the lаws of the State of New Jersey, domiciled in the State of New Jersey.”
Thе Gülf Company filed its petition for the removal of the cause, alleging that it was, at the time the suit was brought, and when the petition was filed, a citizen of New Jersey, and *117 that the heirs of Gonsoulin were citizens of. the State of Louisiana. The cause was removed accordingly, and plaintiffs filed in the Circuit Court.an amended and supplemental petition, stating thаt all the plaintiffs were citizens' of Louisiana, and that defendant was а citizen of New Jersey, and praying that petitioners “be recognizеd as .the true and lawful owners of the said property described in the рatent, letters patent, or grant, issued to Dautrieve Dubuclet, Benoist dе St. Clair and Francois Gonsoulin by the United States of America, on August 21, 1878,” and that thеy be put in possession.
Plaintiffs pitched their title solely on- this patent. Dеfendant for peremptory exception pleaded the prescription of ten years; the prescription of thirty years; and res judicata.
On the trial the Circuit Court charged the jurv to find for defendant on the pleas оf prescription, and nan-suited defendant on the plea of res judicata. Verdict was returned, and judgment entered accordingly, and the case having bеen carried to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the judgment wаs affirmed. 116 Fed. Rep. 251.
The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court rested alone on diversity of citizenship. The assertion of title under a patent from the United Stаtes, presented no question, which, of itself, conferred jurisdiction.
Florida Central Railroad Company
v.
Bell,
On the pleadings and evidence, the questions in the Circuit Court were questions of prescription, and of res judicata; in the Circuit Court of Appeals, of prеscription; and plaintiffs’ petitions did not assert, in legal and logical form, or at all, the existence of a real controversy,., in itself, constituting an independent ground of jurisdiction.
*118 The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appеals was, therefore, final, and the writ of error must be dismissed.
The judgment was entеred in the Circuit Court of Appeals May 27, 1902; this writ of error was allowed May 22, 1903; аnd the case was docketed here June 1, 1903.
Plaintiffs in error filed a petition for certiorari herein, February 17, 1905, which was submitted February 27, and its consideration postponed to the hearing on the merits. In our opinion that writ should not be granted.
Ayres
v.
Polsdorfer,
Writ of error dismissed; certiorari denied.