
    MULQUEEN et al. v. SCHLICHTER JUTE CORDAGE CO.
    (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.
    May 14, 1901.)
    FkDERAU COURTS — JURISDICTION'—EQUITABLE DeI-’HKSB IN ACTION AT IjAW.
    A federal court; cannot entertain a purely equitable defense In an action in ejectment, and, tlie matter being jurisdictional, tlie court is bound to take notice of it, although no objection is raised by the parties.
    Ejectment. On motion by defendant for judgment non obstante veredicto.
    
      Henry F. Cochrane, for plaintiffs.
    Kinley J. Tengr, for defendant.
   J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

The principal question raised and argued upon this motion cannot be considered by a federal court in this action. The plaintiffs haye a complete legal title to an undivided x/2i of the land described in the writ, and, for the present, this title must prevail. The defense set up is purely equitable, and, while it would be admissible in a Pennsylvania court, it cannot be entertained by a court of the United States in an action at law. The precise point was decided in Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212, 4 L. Ed. 372. See, also, Montejo v. Owen, 14 Blatchf. 324, Fed. Cas. No. 9,722; Snyder v. Pharo (C. C.) 25 Fed. 398; and Kircher v. Murray (C. C.) 54 Fed. 626. As the point is jurisdictional, I am bound to take notice of it upon my own motion, even although it was not raised by the parties themselves: Terry v. Davy (C. C.) 107 Fed. 50.

The motion is refused, and judgment will be entered upon the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.  