carrier whose cars are used in the interchange. The finding of the Commission, approved by the court, was that the Michigan Central would merely have to expend its proportion of the amount necessary to install the connection between the two roads, and would be called upon for no further expenditure in the premises, and that the business to be derived by it from Ortonville, Goodrich, and the surrounding country via the Detroit United Railway, promised to be considerable in amount, and thereby the Michigan Central would be a beneficiary from the proposed connection and interchange. It was, we think, permissible for the court to find, as in effect it did find, that the benefits thus derived would include compensation for the use of the cars of the Michigan Central for purposes of loading and delivery along the line of the Detroit United. We are unable to see that any question as to the adequacy of the compensation was raised in the state court. Plaintiff in error relies upon Central Stock Yards v. Louis. & Nash. R. R., 192 U. S. 568, and Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. Stock Yards Co., 212 U. S. 132. The former of these was an action in the Federal court and came here by appeal from the Circuit Court of Appeals. This court held as a matter of construction that the constitution of Kentucky did not require that the railroad company should deliver its own cars to another road. The second case was a review of the judgment of the court of last resort of the State. That court having held that the state constitution did require the carrier to deliver its own cars to the connecting road, it was contended that this requirement was void under the Fourteenth Amendment as an unlawful taking of property. This court said (212 U. S. 143): “In view of the well known and necessary practice of connecting roads, we are far from saying that a valid law could not be passed to prevent the cost and loss of time entailed by needless transshipment or breaking bulk, in case of an Opinion of the Court. 236 U. S. unreasonable refusal by a carrier to interchange cars with another for through traffic. We do not pass upon the question. It is enough to observe that such a law perhaps ought to be so limited as to respect the paramount needs of the carrier concerned, and at least could be sustained only with full and adequate regulations for his protection from the loss or undue detention of cars, and for securing due compensation for their use. The constitution of Kentucky is simply a universal undiscriminating requirement, with no adequate provisions such as we have described. We do not mean, however, that the silence of the constitution might not be remedied by an act of legislature or a regulation by a duly authorized subordinate body if such legislation should be held consistent with the state constitution by the state court." The case now before us is plainly distinguishable, as appears from what we have said. And, upon the whole, we see no sufficient ground for denouncing the regulation in question as either arbitrary or unreasonable. There remains the contention that the statute and the order made in pursuance of it operate as a burden upon and interference with interstate commerce. That the order intrinsically applies only to intrastate traffic was held by the state court in this case, upon the ground that the jurisdiction of the Commission is thus limited; and in this the court did but follow its previous ruling in Ann Arbor R. R. v. Railroad Commission, 163 Michigan, 49. Therefore, the contention under the Commerce Clause is narrowed to the single point that the order requires the cars of the Michigan Central to be turned over to the connecting carrier "at all times and under all circumstances and without reference to the needs and demands of interstate commerce." But it seems to us that this is an unreasonable construction of the order. By its terms, as thus far construed by the state court, it merely requires the two companies to interchange cars, carload shipments, less than carload shipments and passenger traffic, in accordance with the provisions of § 7 of the Act, that is to say, "in the same manner and under the same general conditions except as to motive power as belt line railroads and terminal railroads are now or may be used for like purposes." Manifestly, this involves no disregard of the needs of interstate commerce, and we must indulge the presumption, until the contrary is made to appear, that the State will not so construe or enforce the order as to interfere with or obstruct such commerce. Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576, 591; St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 369. The recent decisions of this court, cited in support of the contention that the order interferes with interstate commerce (Houston & Tex. Cent. R. R. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321, 329; McNeill v. Southern Railway, 202 U. S. 543, 561; St. Louis S. W. Ry. v. Arkansas, 217 U. S. 136, 149; Chi., R. I. &c. Ry. v. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 426, 433); are so plainly distinguishable that no time need be spent in discussing them. Judgment affirmed. WILSON CYPRESS COMPANY v. DEL POZO Y MARCOS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 135. Argued January 19, 1915.-Decided March 15, 1915. Although the jurisdiction of the Federal court may have been invoked solely on account of diverse citizenship, if the object of the suit is to quiet title to a grant of the former sovereign, depending for its completeness on a treaty and on laws of the United States and acts of Federal officers thereunder, this court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the amount of land patented to the grantee of a former sovereign may have exceeded the amount confirmed by the act of Statement of the Case. 236 U.S. Congress and have been predicated upon a survey and limitation to the amount confirmed, the patentee has a taxable interest in the land that can be reached for proper taxation by the State. Where the lower courts erroneously sustained complainant's contention that the lands involved were not taxable because never segregated from the public domain, and therefore did not pass upon the other contentions also urged by complainant as sufficient to sustain the title and which involved questions of local law and the weighing of conflicting evidence, this court will not on finding that the lower courts erred on the question of taxability finally pass on the other questions, but will reverse the decree and remand the case to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion. 202 Fed. Rep. 742, reversed. SUIT to quiet title brought in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Florida by appellees, whom we shall call throughout complainants and the appellant defendant. The bill alleges that the complainants are the heirs at law of Miguel Marcos, a lieutenant in the Spanish Army; that he was granted by the lawful authorities of the King of Spain on the eighteenth of October, 1815, 5,500 acres of land in the then Province of East Florida, on two banks of a creek which empties into the St. John's river about two miles north of Long Lake; that the grant was confirmed to his widow, Teresa Rodriguez, in her own right and for and on behalf of her children by the United States to the extent of a league square; that the grant was an inchoate right to said tract, under the laws of Spain called a first title or permit to occupy the land and, after occupancy and proof thereof, to secure a complete or royal title, but before such title issued Spain ceded East Florida to the United States, who, by the eighth article of the treaty between the United States and Spain, occupied the position of Spain with regard to this and like grants of land and were pledged to confirm title thereto; that the lands were neither surveyed nor segregated from the public domain during the sovereignty of Spain; that the same were wild and uncultivated, were never in the actual occu 236 U.S. Statement of the Case. pancy of the grantee or of his widow and children and the title thereto at the time of the cession of the Floridas passed to the United States, subject to the equitable claim of the complainants. The succession of complainants to the original grant is traced by the bill and it is alleged that soon after the cession of the Floridas to the United States, Teresa Rodriguez, applied to the board of land commissioners appointed to examine and report on claims to lands in East Florida for the confirmation of the grant and it was reported by the board to Congress as a valid grant and its confirmation recommended. That thereafter Congress, by an act approved May 23, 1828, c. 70, 4 Stat. 284, confirmed it to the extent of a league square, to be located within the limits of the original claim and bounded by sectional lines, and to be in quantities of not less than one section. That under the sixth section of the act of Congress confirmation of the grant was required to be accepted as a final settlement of the claim or the claim to be brought before the judge of the Superior Court for the district of East Florida within one year from the passage of the act; that the latter proceeding was not had and that by the act of Congress the title to the land was confirmed to the extent of one league, to be located within the bounds of the original grant. That it was held by the judicial and executive branches of the Government that a league square was 4,438.68 acres. That by the laws then in force in the Territory of Florida it was the duty of the Surveyor General of the Territory to make the survey of the lands confirmed to complainants' ancestor and make certificate thereof and file the same in the land office of the United States in said Territory. That among the acts of Congress extending to said Territory was the act of March 3, 1807, by the terms of which it was made unlawful to take possession of, survey or cause to be surveyed or settle upon any lands ceded or secured to the United States by any treaty with a foreign |