Source: https://openjurist.org/10/f1d/80
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:29:43+00:00

Document:
But it is not a practical question in this case. in any view, for the reason that there can be no surplus to pay it.
The residuary legatees cannot recover anything against the executor in this cause. It is a bill which has no other purpose, and can properly have none other, than to ascertain the amount due the plaintiff and to enforce its payment. P(£yne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425; Hook v. Payne, 14 Wall. 252; Hainesv. Carpenter, 1 Woods, 262. Whether, under any circumstances, we would have jurisdiction to decree relief to the residuary legatees against the executor, they all being citizens of this state, I need not now inquire. There are no assets for distribution, and they are entitled to no other in my view of the case. Let the proper decree be drawn, according to the principles laid down in this opinion, in favor of the plaintiff, as prescribed by the eighth equity rule. .
NOTE. See Hall v. Law, 102 U. S. 461, 466, on statutes of limitation in a court of equity.
SUITS AGAINST COLLECTORS TO ':RECOVER DUTIES MENT IN.
A suit against a collector of customs is a private suit, and there i, no claim against the government until a certificate of prohable cause under section 989, Rev. St., has been obtained from the court; then the government assumes a certain liability.
SAME-JUDGMENT IN-LIABILITY FOR INTEREST ON.
Liability of government for interest on a judgment against collector must be created by statute. It cannot be implied.
3. SAME-REFUNDING OF DUTIES-ACTS OF CONGRESS RELATIVE TO.
The various acts of congress relative to refunding of duties illegally exacted, and interest thereon, reviewed and commented on, and the drawn that the liability assumed by government does not include the payment of interest upon judgments recovered against collectors of customs, and that such interest cannot be collected.
by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.
SAME-INTEREsT AB DAMAGES ON WRIT OF ERROR.
The allowance of interest as damages on a writ of error, under section 1010, nev. St., and under rule 23, Sup. Ct., and the form of mandate affirming, with interest, a judgment where collector is plaintiff in error, does not affect the question. They belong solely to putting the judgment in shape.
G. SAME-INTEREST ON JUDGMENT IN-LIABILITY OF COI,LEeTon.
There is no personal liability on the part of the collector, after the making of a certificate of probable cause, to pay the interest on judgments obtained against him. Under section 989, Rev. St., he is not liable for such interest if the government is not U. S. v. Sh&rman, 98 U. S. 565, and Erskine v. Van Arsdale, 15 Wall. 7G, cited and explained. Circular of the commissioner of customs of March 16, 1881, upheld. At Law.
" Interest shall be allowed in all judgments in civil causes recovered in a circuit or district court, and may be levied by the marshal under process of execution issued thereon, in all cases where, by the law of the state in which such court is held, interest may be levied under process of execution on judgments recovered in the courts of such state; and it shall be calculated froID the date of the judgment, at such rate as is allowed by law on juugmeuts recovered in the courts of such state."
case there was a judgment in June, 1869, against an agent of the treasury department. There was no certificate of probable cause made till June, 1874, and then it was obtained by the plaintiff in the judgment and not by the defendant. The treasury department then paid to the plaintiff in the judgment the amount of it, with interest from the date of the certificate of probable cause. The plaintiff then applied to the supreme court for a mandamus to compel the payment of the interest from the date of the judgment to the date of the certificate. The application was denied. The court held that no claim against the government arose under section 12 of the act of 1863, as applied to that case, until the certificate was made, and that the government was not liable for the interest which accrued on the judgment prior to the making of the certificate. In the present case the certificate was made before the judgment was entered, but still the question remains whether the government is liable for interest on the judgment from its date if a certificate of probable cause was made prior to or at the time of the date of the judgment. This point was not decided in U. S. v. Sherman. It is well settled that the liability of the government for the interest claimed in this case must be created by some statute. There is no contract by the government or any of its authorized agents to pay interest. There is no judgment against the United States. There is no suit against the United States. There is no liability. of the United States till after a recovery against the collector and a certificate of probable cause. So the question arises as to the construction of section 989.
"As a general rule the government does not pay interest. The exceptions to this rule are found only in cases where the demands are made under special contracts or special laws, expressly providing for the payment of interest. A::J. obligation to pay it is not to be implied against the government as it is a!f<linst a private party from the mere fact that the principal was detained from the creditor after the right to receive it had accrued," 9 Op. of Attys. Gen. 59.
the treasnry not otherwise appropriated, "to refund to the several persons indebted thereto such sums of money as have been iliegally exacted by collectors of customs, nnder the sanction of the treasury department, for duties on imported merchandise" since March 3, 1833; "provided, that before any such refunding the secretary shall be satisfied, by decisions of the courts of the United Sta.tes upon the principle involved, that such duties were illegally exacted; and provided, also, that such decisions of the courts shall have. been adopted or acquiesced in by the treasury department as its rule of construction. " In this section 2 nothing is said about paying the amounts of judgnentsor about paying interest on judgments or about paying interest on sums illegally exacted, but it is the sums illegally exacted which are to be refunded, and the refunding is made to depend on the adoption of, or acquiescence in, the decision of the court by the treasury department. There is nothing in this section 2 to indicate that it was limited to cases of duties paid under protest, while under \ the act of February 26, 1845, suits could be brought against a collector only where duties had been paid under protest. On the tenth (>f August, 184.6, an act was passed (9 St. at Large, 677) directing the refunding to a party named of "the balance remaining unpaid, and interest thereon," of a judgment recovered by him in this court against the collector of this port for the recovery of duties illegally exacted, "a part of which judgment has been heretofore paid." This general and special legislation indicates an intention in congress to specify interest when it is to be paid. Like instances of refunding to parties named duties illegally or erroneollsly collected on imports, but without mentioning interest, are found in acts passed June 28, 1848, and March 3, 1849, (9. St. at Large, 720, 780.) The act of March 3, 1857, § 5, (11 St. at Large, 195,) provided for an appeal to the secretary of the treasury, after protest, from the decision of a collector as to the liability of imported goods to or their exemption from duty, and made the decision on such final, unless suit should be brought within 30 days after such deCISIon.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5