6 Wall 766-770, 18 L. 882, ARMSTRONG'S FOUNDRY.

War.- Where seizures are made on land, under confiscation acts for suppression of rebellion, proceedings for condemnation shall conform, in respect to trial by jury and exceptions to evidence, to course of common law, although suit is, in form, a libel of information, p. 769.

Rule reaffirmed in Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. 462, 19 L. 199, and Ex parte Graham, 10 Wall. 543, 19 L. 982, proceedings to confiscate real estate under above acts are not proceedings in admiralty; Garnharts v. United States, 16 Wall. 165, 21 L 276, applying rule to proceedings for violating internal revenue laws; The J. W. French, 5 Hughes, 439, 13 Fed. 924, holding in proceeding at common law a citizen cannot be divested of his property except by verdict of a jury; Pasteur v. Lewis, 39 La. Ann. 9, 10, 1 So. 310, 311, but where there is default on part of interested parties, there is no necessity for a jury trial; Turnpike Co. v. Parks, 50 Ohio St. 581, 35 N. E. 307, 28 L. R. A. 773, holding statute which allows Probate Court to declare a toll-road vacated, and to be a free road, without intervention of a jury, is unconstitutional. Cited, arguendo, in Coffey v. United States, 116 U. S. 435, 29 L. 684, 6 S. Ct. 436, as authority for holding general rules of pleading in regard to admiralty suits in rem apply to a suit in rem for a forfeiture, brought by United States, after seizure on land; to same effect is Coffey v. United States, 117 U. S. 234, 235, 29 L. 891, 6 S. Ct. 717, 718. Approved, arguendo, in Confiscation Cases, 1 Woods, 225, 229, F. C. 3,097, and Powers v. Raymond, 137 Mass. 485, without special application. Cited incidentally in United States v. Hart, 6 Wall. 772, 18 L. 914.

Distinguished in Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. 304, 20 L. 144, where respondents defaulted and there were no issues of fact to try.

War.-A full pardon by the president of all offenses committed by the owner of property seized under confiscation act of 1861, relieves the owner from forfeiture, so far as the right accrues to the government, p. 769.

Reaffirmed in United States v. Padelford, 9 Wall. 542, 19 L. 792, in affirming right of petitioner to proceeds arising from sale of his cotton, which government had seized under confiscation acts; Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Bosworth, 133 U. S. 105, 33 L. 555, 10 S. Ct. 234, holding where realty has been confiscated and sold, the pardon of former owner vests in him the estate of remainder, dependent on the expiration of the confiscated life estate. (For contrary rule see Kirk v. Lewis, 4 Woods, 102, 9 Fed. 646.) Cited, arguendo, in Knote v. United States, 95 U. S. 153, 24 L. 443, holding general pardon granted by President Johnson, does not entitle one receiving same to proceeds of his property, sold under confiscation

acts, after such proceeds have been paid into United States treasury; Ex parte Weimer, 8 Biss. 325, F. C. 17,362, in discussion as to effect of pardon, holding pardon for distinct offense is limited in its operation to that offense; United States v. Stevenson, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 502, F. C. 16,395, no special application.

Distinguished in Kirk v. Lynd, 106 U. S. 318, 27 L. 194, 1 S. Ct. 298, and Griswold v. Connolly, 1 Woods, 194, F. C. 5,833, where property had been confiscated and condemned before question of pardon was raised; Hart v. United States, 118 U. S. 67, 30 L. 97, 6 S. Ct. 963, holding a pardon can have no effect on a debt which Congress has declared shall not be paid.

Appeal and error.- Condemnation proceedings, where seizures were made on land under confiscation acts for suppression of the Rebellion, can only be brought before Supreme Court on writ of error, p. 769.

Reaffirmed in Brown v. United States, 1 Woolw. 200, F. C. 2,032, where appeal from District to Circuit Court was on this ground dismissed. Cited with approval in Morris's Cotton, 8 Wall. 511, 19 L. 482, dissenting opinion in Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Globe Ins. Co., 98 U. S. 376, 25 L. 204, and Stickney v. Wilt, 23 Wall. 164, 23 L. 54, holding further as to action that will be taken in Supreme Court when court below had no jurisdiction over cause; Garnett v. United States, 11 Wall. 258, 20 L. 79, no special application.

Miscellaneous.- Cited incidentally in Morris v. United States, 7 Wall. 579, 19 L. 282, and United States v. Thomasson, 4 Biss. 343, F. C. 16,479. Cited in dissenting opinion in Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Globe Ins. Co., 98 U. S. 377, 25 L. 205, not in point.

6 Wall. 770, 18 L. 914, ST. LOUIS STREET FOUNDRY.

War. Upon proper pleading and proof, the claimant of property seized under the act of August 6, 1861, is entitled to the benefit of amnesty to the same extent as, under like pleading and proof, he would be entitled to the benefit of pardon, p. 770.

Cited in Griswold v. Connolly, 1 Woods, 194, F. C. 5,833, holding a defense to a decree of condemnation under confiscation acts, which was not pleaded before decree, cannot be set up to avoid

same.

8 Wall. 770-773, 18 L. 914, UNITED STATES v. HART.

Courts. Act of 1863, giving District Court for Territory of New Mexico jurisdiction over cases arising under revenue laws, does not confer on that court jurisdiction over proceedings to condemn property under confiscation acts of 1861 and 1862, p. 773.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in connection with Union Ins. Co. v. United States, and Armstrong's Foundry, supra, which cases it approves, arguendo, as bearing on question of procedure in proceedings for condemnation of property under confiscation acts; Morris's Cotton,

8 Wall. 511, 19 L. 482, Ex parte Graham, 10 Wall. 543, 19 L. 982, Stickney v. Wilt, 23 Wall. 164, 23 L. 54, Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Globe Ins. Co., 98 U. S. 376, 25 L. 204, and Confiscation Cases, 1 Woods, 229, F. C. 3,097.

Evidence. In construing Spanish grant, attendant and surrounding circumstances, at time it was made, were held admissible, p. 784.

Cited and applied in Good v. Martin, 95 U. S. 95, 24 L. 343, holding rule applicable to contracts generally; Scanland v. Porter, 64 Ark. 473, 42 S. W. 898, where question was raised as to whether party was a maker or indorser of a particular instrument. See note, 3 Am. Dec. 574.

Public lands.- Practical interpretation placed upon a Spanish grant by the parties thereto, is entitled to great weight when construing doubtful clauses, p. 785.

Distinguished in Mayor v. Starin, 106 N. Y. 19, 12 N. E. 637, where practical construction had not been uniform.

Boundaries.- In determining extent of grant, the quantity of land specified, as well as boundaries named and surveys made, is to be considered, p. 785.

Appeal and error.— Judgment will not be reversed for improper exclusion of evidence, which, if admitted, could not have changed result, p. 786.

Reaffirmed in Runkle v. Burnham, 153 U. S. 224, 38 L. 697, 14 S. Ct. 840.

Miscellaneous.- Cited incidentally in Cavazos v. Trevino, 35 Tex. 159, case growing out of same cause as principal case.

6 Wall. 788-795, 18 L. 740, STRONG v. UNITED STATES.

Army and navy.- Sureties on purser's bond, stationed at a navy yard, are liable for his defaults in accounting for money remitted to him as purser, although purser had been required to perform duties which would have been performed by navy agent, had one been stationed at yard, p. 790.

United States.- Private books of government disbursing agents are inadmissible to control accounts as kept by accounting officers of treasury department, p. 795.

United States.- Unofficial letters of officer of treasury department are inadmissible in suit against disbursing agent to contradict, or even explain the official adjustment of accounts as shown in duly certified transcript, p. 795.

Not cited.

the following Reports and all preceding them in each State or series:

TO THE

FOUR VOLUMES CONTAINED IN THIS BOOK.

70, 71, 72, 73.

1. Before there can be a right to accretions there | such alienage was terminated.
must be an estate to which the accretions can at-
tach.