Sawyer

(after stating the facts as above). [1] Upon the facts several obstacles present themselves as standing *769 in the way of a recovery by the plaintiff. His whole case, as indicated, rests primarily upon the construction and effect of the Swamp Land Act, which is the essential basis of his title, if he .have any. The action being in ejectment, the first inquiry is whether plaintiff has shown legal title to the premises involved, since he must recover, if at all, upon the strength of his own title, regardless of the weakness of that of his adversary (Christy v. Scott, 14 How. (U. S.) 282, 14 L Ed. 422; Fussel v. Gregg, 113 U. S. 550 , 5 Sup. Ct. 631, 28 L. Ed. 993 ; McGuire v. Blount, 199 U. S. 144 , 26 Sup. Ct. 1, 50 L. Ed. 125 ), and it must be a legal title as distinguished from a mere equity (McCormick v. Hayes, 159 U. S. 332, 339 , 16 Sup. Ct. 37, 40 L. Ed. 171 ).

[2] The plaintiff’s theory is that the Swamp Land Act was an absolute grant in prsesenti, vesting at once in the state, and subject to its immediate disposition, legal title to all the lands falling within the class therein described, dependent only on their identification as such and without the necessity of a…