delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought by Martin, the defendant in error in Durand & Thompson v. Martin, just decided, to recover of Thompson, one of the plaintiffs in error, a crop of wheat raised by him during the year 1878 on the land described in that case, Avhicli he took from the possession of Martin in 1876, and occupied adversely thereafter. - The court has found as a fact that Martin neArer had possession of the crop before the commencement of this suit, and that it was raised by Thompson with his oavii labor and at his oavh expense Avliile he held exclusive possession of the land adversely to Martin and claiming title.

From this it is clear that the question of the title to the land Avas not necessarily involved in this case, and on looking into the opinion, which in California forms part of the record, we find that the decision Avas put entirely on the ground that' the OAvner of land out of possession cannot recover from one in possession, holding adversely under claim of title, the crops raised by him in cultivating the soil. The remedy in such a *377 case is by an appropriate action for tibie recovery of the possession- of the land and damages- for the detention. This does not present a Federal question, and

The motion to dismiss is granted. ■