(110 U. S. 219) UNITED STATES v. GRAHAM. (January 21, 1884.) MILEAGE-NAVAL OFFICERS-TRAVEL IN FOREIGN LANDS. A naval officer traveling under orders, whether by land or sea, in the United States or out, is entitled to his mileage for the entire distance traversed; and this was the case when the act of 1835 was in force as well as now. Appeal from the Court of Claims. Sol. Gen. Phillips and Thomas Simons, for appellant. WAITE, C. J. We are unable to distinguish this case in principle from that of U. S. v. Temple, 105 U. S. 97, in which it was decided that an officer of the navy who, while engaged in public business, traveled under orders by land or sea, the travel by sea not being in a public vessel of the United States, was entitled, under the act of June 30, 1876, c. 159, (20 St. 65,) to mileage at the rate of eight cents a mile for the whole distance traveled, whether by sea or land. The mileage sued for in this case accrued while the act of March 3, 1835, c. 27, (4 St. 757,) was in force. The language of that act, on which the question now presented arises, is as follows: "It is hereby expressly declared that the yearly allowance provided for in this act is all the pay, compensation, and allowance that shall be received, under any circumstances whatever, by any such officer or person, except for traveling expenses under orders, for which ten cents per mile shall be allowed." That of the act of 1876, passed upon in Temple's case, was: "And so much of the act of June 16, 1874, * * * as provides that only actual traveling expenses shall be allowed to any person holding employment or appointment under the United States while engaged on public business, as is applicable to the officers of the navy so engaged, is hereby repealed; and the sum of eight cents per mile shall be allowed such officers while so engaged in lieu of their actual expenses." It is found as a fact, in this case, that on the sixth of April, 1835, which was only a little more than a month after the act of 1835 was passed, circular instructions were issued from the treasury department to the effect that mileage at the rate of 10 cents a mile was fixed by law and should be paid for traveling expenses within the United States, but that the usual and necessary passage money actually paid by officers returning from foreign service, under orders or on sick ticket, when they could not return in a public vessel, would be paid as theretofore, as well as the like expenses of officers going out. The navy regulations, adopted in 1865, and in force in 1872, when the claim of Graham, the appellee, accrued, provided that "for traveling out of the United States the actual expenses only are allowed." It is also found that from the time of the passage of the act of 1835 until the decision of Temple's Case in this court, the navy and treasury departments had, with a single exception, always held that the 10 cents. a mile did not apply to travel to, from, or in foreign countries, but only to travel in the United States. In Temple's Case the long-continued practice in the departments was relied on to justify the decision of the accounting officers of the treasury against him, but the fact of the actual existence of the practice was not found as it has been now. * The operative words in the act of 1876 are, "the sum of eight cents. per mile shall be allowed;" and the act of 1835, "for which ten cents. per mile shall be allowed." In Temple's Case it was said the language. of the act of 1876 was so clear and explicit as not to be open to construction, and to our minds the same is true of the act of 1835. Under both acts all traveling expenses are to be paid by mileage, and there is not in either of them any indication of an intention of congress to make a distinction between travel by sea or on land, in foreign countries or in the United States. As was remarked by Mr. Justice Woods, "the practice finds no higher warrant or sanction in the act of 1835 than in the act of 1876." Such being the case, it matters not what the practice of the departments may have been or how long continued, for it can only be resorted to in aid of interpretation, and "it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation." If there were ambiguity or doubt, then such a practice, begun so early and continued so long, would be in the highest degree persuasive, if not absolutely controlling, in its effect. But, with language clear and precise, and with its meaning evident, there is no room for construction, and consequently no need of anything to give it aid. The cases to this effect are numerous. Edwards' Lessee V. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206; U. S. v. Temple, supra; Swift Co. v. U. S. 105 U. S. 695; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U. S.; [S. C. 2 SUP. CT. REP. 832.] The judgment is affirmed. (110 U. S. 216) HAMBRO and others v. CASEY, Receiver, etc. (January 21, 1884.) DAMAGES FOR PROTEST OF FOREIGN BILLS-TRUE OWNER. Where a debtor transmitted to his creditor certain foreign hills of exchange indorsed by him, with authority to collect them at maturity and retain the amount of the debt, and the creditor caused them to be protested when due, held that, being only the holder, and not the true owner, he could not recover of his debtor the statutory damages allowed upon the protest of foreign bills, over and above the actual expense. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisana. Thos. L. Bayne, for plaintiffs in error. J. D. Rouse and Wm. Grant, for defendant in error. WAITE, C. J. The controlling facts in this case are as follows: C. J. Hambro & Son, a banking firm in London, England, were the correspondents of the New Orleans National Banking Association, a national bank in New Orleans. The bank kept a running account with the firm, drawing upon them from time to time as occasion required, and remitting bills to cover its drafts. In the course of its business the bank became the owner of certain bills drawn by a New Orleans firm on their correspondents in France, amounting in the aggregate to 440,000 francs, or $93,121 in United States currency. These bills were indorsed by the bank, and remitted to Hambro & Son for collection and credit, but before they matured the bank and the drawers and drawees all failed. The failure of the bank occurred on the 4th of October, 1873, and, on a statement of accounts a few days after, the bank was found in debt to Hambro & Son for the sum of $89,798.30. The bills which had been remitted were protested at maturity at an expense of $1,356, which was paid by Hambro & Son. This item was not included in the balance shown by the ac-count stated. Under the laws of Louisiana, the damages upon protest of foreign bills of exchange is 10 per cent. on the principal sum specified in the bills. Suit was brought against the receiver of the bank, to recover the charges for protest, and the 10 per cent. damages. Judgment was given against the receiver for the expenses of protest, but in his favor on the claim for damages. This writ of error was sued out by Hambro & Son to reverse that judgment so far as it was in favor of the receiver. In our opinion the judgment was clearly right. The protested bills are the property of the bank, subject, in the hands of Hambro & Son, to their lien as bankers, for the security of the balance due them on general account. All moneys collected by Hambro & Son on the bills, whether it be for principal, interest, or damages, must be passed as soon as collected to the credit of the bank. Hambro & Son are the holders of the bills, but in no legal sense the owners, though it may be their lien is for more than can be collected from the drawers or drawees. Clearly the law does not require the bank to pay the damages, when the payment, if made, must be passed to its own credit on the books of its collecting agents. That would be the operative effect of such a judgment as is now asked for. Judgment affirmed. (110 U. S. 225) UNITED STATES v. GRANT, Surviving Partner, etc. (January 21, 1884.) REOPENING OF CASE-MERGER OF JUDGMENT-APPEAL. Where, in pursuance of a special act of congress, the court of claims reopened a case in which judgment had been rendered for the claimant, and, as a part of the original judgment, awarded him a further sum which had been omitted by mistake, held, that the order adjudging the additional sum, being merged in the original judgment, an appeal from which was barred by the lapse of time, was not appealable. Appeal from the Court of Claims. On motion to dismiss. P. Phillips, W. Hallen Phillips, and R. P. Lowe, for appellees. WAITE, C. J. Grant & Co. sued the United States in the court of claims on the second of December, 1868, and on the sixth of December, 1869, recovered a judgment for $34,225.14. On the fifth of January, 1883, the following act was passed by congress: "Be it enacted * * ** that the court of claims be and it is hereby directed to reopen and readjudicate the case of Albert Grant and Darius Jackson * * * upon the evidence heretofore submitted to the said court in said cause, * ** * and if said court, in such readjudication, shall find from such evidence that the court gave judgment for a different sum than the evidence sustains, or the court intended, it shall correct such error, and adjudge to the said Albert Grant such additional sum, in said cause, as the evidence shall justify, not to exceed fourteen thousand and sixteen dollars and twenty-nine cents; and the amount by readjudication in favor of the said Albert Grant shall be a part of the original judgment in the cause recorded in the fifth court of claims report, page eighty." Under this act Grant, on the thirteenth of January, 1883, applied to the court to re-examine the case and to render a judgment nunc pro tunc for the additional sum of $14,016.29. Upon this application the court, on due consideration, found that the original judgment. was given for a different sum than was intended, and that, "in order to correct such error and adjudge to said Albert Grant such additional sum in this cause as the evidence justifies, he should receive a further sum of $14,016.29;" and on the eleventh of June, 1883, a judg ment for that amount was rendered. From this judgment the United States took an appeal, which Grant now moves to dismiss on the ground that no appeal lies from an order or judgment entertained in such a proceeding. In our opinion this motion should be granted. The act of congress, in its legal effect, is nothing more than a direction to the court of claims to entertain an application to correct an error in the entry of one of its former judgments. The readjudication ordered is to be upon the old evidence, and, if an error is found, the correction is to be made, not by rendering a new judgment, but by amending the old one. The language is, "and the amount by re adjudication in favor of the said Albert Grant shall be a part of the original judgment." As, when the act was passed, an appeal from the original judgment was barred by lapse of time, we are satisfied it was the intention of congress to make the action of the court of claims upon this readjudication final. Certainly, the old judgment is not opened to an appeal by the readjudication, and there is nothing to indicate that the new part of the judgment can be separated from the old for the purposes of review here. By the correction the new judgment was merged in the old. The motion to dismiss is granted. (110 U. S. 151) HART V. SANSOM and others. (January 21, 1884.) ACTION TO RECOVER LAND AND REMOVE CLOUD ON TITLE-DECREE OF STATE A decree of a state court for the removal of a cloud upon the title of land within the state, rendered against a citizen of another state, who has been cited by publication only, as directed by the local statutes, is no bar to an action by him in the circuit court of the United States to recover the land against the plain tiff in the former suit. In a suit to recover land, and to remove a cloud upon the title thereof, brought in a court of the state in which the land is, against W., H., and others, the petition alleged that W. ejected the plaintiff and unlawfully withheld possession from him; that H. set up some pretended claim or title to the land; that the other defendants held recorded deeds thereof, which were fraudulent and void; and that the pretended claims and deeds cast a cloud upon the plaintiff's title. Due service was made on the other defendants; and a citation to H., who was a citizen of another state, was published as directed by the local statutes. All the defendants were defaulted; and upon a writ of inquiry the jury found that H. claimed the land, but had no title, of record or otherwise, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment was rendered that the plaintiff recover the land of the defendants, and that the deeds mentioned in the petition be canceled and annulled, and the cloud thereby removed, and for costs, and that execution issue for the costs. Held, that this judgment was no bar to an action by H. in the circuit court of the United States to recover the land against the plaintiff in the former suit. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas. Henry J. Leovy and W. Hallett Phillips, for plaintiff in error. GRAY, J. This is a writ of error sued out by Edmond J. Hart, a citizen of Louisiana, to reverse a judgment rendered against him in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Texas, in an action brought by him against Marion Sansom and the heirs at law of Thomas M. League, citizens of Texas, to recover a |