Cobban

[1] (after stating the facts as above). The contention is made that tlie court below was without jurisdiction *234 of the cause of suit for the reason that the suit is brought to remove a cloud from title, and that such a suit may be maintained in a federal court only when the plaintiff is in possession, or the land is vacant and unoccupied, for the reason that otherwise the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, citing Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146 , 11 Sup. Ct. 276, 34 L. Ed. 873 , and Lawson v. United States, 207 U. S. 1 , 28 Sup. Ct. 15, 52 L. Ed. 65 . The rule so invoked was well established before it was expressed in section 723 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583), which provides that suits in equity shall not be maintained in either of the courts of the United States in any case where a plain, complete, and adequate remedy at law may be had. Referring to the provisions of that section, Mr. Justice Brown said:

But the rule was devised and the statute was enacted mainly to secure to the defendant the privilege of a trial by jury, and this he may waive. If in a suit in equity he answers and submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he cannot…