that the State was prohibited by law, by its own statute of limitations, from bringing any suit for the recovery of the lands; that the claim of the State was stale; and that so much time had elapsed, and other rights had become so involved by the issue of bonds by the railroa'd company secured upon these lands, and by the sale of so large a portion of the lands to parties who bought in good faith, that the State should be held estopped from now raising the question at issue; and further, because the State of Michigan had, by virtue of special acts of its legislature, caused lists to be made of these lands and sent to the assessing officers, and that for many years, under the authority of the State of Michigan, they had been specially assessed as railroad lands, and the railway company had paid many thousands of dollars for taxes imposed upon them under these acts of the legislature.
The answer also alleged that application was made by the railway company in 1870 to the commissioner of the state land office to know whether any of these lands were claimed by the State as swamp lands, and the company was then advised by the commissioner of the state land office that the State did not lay any claim to any of the lands in question; and reiterated the averment of estoppel.
Proofs were taken and upon hearing a decree was entered in the court below in favor of complainant, declaring the title to be in the State; that the cloud thereon arising from the claim of defendants be removed; and referring the cause to a commissioner to take evidence of taxes paid by defendants on the lands and the value, of the timber cut therefrom; whereupon the cause was taken by appeal' to the Supreme Court of Michigan, which reversed the decree and directed the bill to' be dismissed with costs. State v. Flint da Pere Marquette Railroad, 89 Michigan, 481. The cause was then brought by writ of error to this court.
Mr. W. L. Webber for the motion.
Mr. A. A. Filis, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, opposing.
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The Supreme Court of Michigan held that the State might be estopped by its acts, conduct, silence, and acquiescence; that the only question necessary to be considered and determined was the question of estoppel; and, after a full consideration of the facts applicable to this branch of the case, reached the conclusion that the claim of the State had no foundation in equity, justice, or good conscience; that it had become stale; and that the State was estopped to assert title in itself to the lands in question. As its judgment thus rested upon the decision of a question which was not Federal, this court has no jurisdiction to review • it, and- the writ of error must be dismissed. Adams County v. Burlington & Missouri Railroad, 112 U. S. 123 ; Israel v. Arthur, ante, 355.
Writ of error dismissed.