84 FEDERAL REPORTEfi. �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 plaintifif in the judg- ment and net by the defendant. The treasury department then paid to the plaintifif in the judgment the amount of it, with interest from the date of the certificate of probable cause. The plaintiff then ap- plied 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 certifi- cate. 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 gov- ernment was not liable for the interest wuich accrued on the judg- ment 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 wbether 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 TJ. S. v. Sherman. �It is well settled that the liability of the government for the inter- est claimed in this case muat 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 certifi- cate 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 spe- cial contracts or special laws, expressly providing for the payment of interest. An obligation to pay it is not to be implied against the government as it is against a private party from the raere fact that the principal was detained from the crediter after the right to receive it had accrued." 9 Op. of Attys. Gen. 59. �The prinoiple that interest is not recoverable against the govern- ment if it unreasonably delayd payment of its debts, as it would be against a citizen, and the further principle that interest is not to be allowed on claims presented to the defendants unless it is specially provided for, are recognized by the supreme court in Tillson v. U. S. 100 U. S. 43, 47. �The plaintiflfs contend, however, that the interest on the judgment in this case is expressly provided for by statute. A review of the ��� �
