UNITED STATES V. KRUM. 823 �clause must be held to be subordinate to the specifie provisions of particular sections, which show a manifest intent to apply to past transactions. The purpose of that clause was, I think, simply to prevent any existing right of the United States from being wholly eut ofiF, or affected otherwise than expressly provided. Under the con- struction above adopted, as in Sohnv. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596, any existing right to reliquidate the duties would not be eut off ; it would remain unaffected for the full period of one year thereafter, but no longer; and that, I think, is all that the act designed. The defendant is, therefore, entitled to judgment. �See Bamey v. Watfion, 92 U. a 449; Ullman v. Murphy, 11 Blatchf. 354; Refund of (Justoms Dulles, 15 Op. Atty. Gea. 121. ���United States v. Krtjm, Adm'r, and others.* {Circuit Oourt, fi. D. Missouri. March 13, 1882.) �1. Intbrnal Revenue La.w — Collector — PAYrao Money undee Deoreb ob" �Court. �Where a decree of f orfeiture is rendered in a suit for a breach of the internai revenue law, and the defendant, pursuant to a compromise with the govern- ment, pays a sum of money into court, and A. and B. are adjudged entitled to a portion of the fund paid as informers, and the court makes a final order of distribution, and issues checks to C, collecter of internai revenue of the dis- trict, and no appeal is taken, and C. pays A. and B. the amounts to which they have been held entitled, he cannot be held liable on his officiai bond for the amounts so paid, whether the informers are legally entitled thereto or not. �2. Samb — Informer. �Where money is paid into court under circumstances like those above stated, the right of the informers to their proportion of the sum paid is not affected by the fact that a part of such sum is designated to cover taxes. �William A. Bliss, for the United States. �William Patrick, for defendants. �Treat, D. J. This is a suit on the officiai bond of the late Charles W. Ford, formerly collector of internai revenue, to recover three sev- eral sums of money alleged to have been received by him, and to be due to the United States. �It appears that three several suits in rem were instituted by the United States, in the United States district court, for the forfeiture of certain distilled spirits, and such proceediuga therein had as �*Reported by B. P. Iles, Esq., of the 8t. Louis bar. ��� �
