Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/103

 WHITE V. ARTHUR. 91 �from the time of the illegal exaction to the verdict. Nothing is decidee! as to interest on the judgment, when the government cornes to pay it. The interest put into the verdict is put in before ftiere is any certificate of probable cause, and, if there is none, the government asBumes no part of the liability of the defendant. �The allowance of interest as damages, on a writ of error under sec- tion 1010 of the Revised Statutes, and under rule 23 of the supreme court, and tho form of the mandate in affirming with interest a judg- ment where the collector is the plaintiff in error, cannot affect the question here. These things all of them belong solely to the putting the judgment in shape as one in a private suit. Nor does the lan- guage "including interest and costs in judgment cases " mean interest on judgments. It is entirely satisfied by conuning it to the interest included in the amount of the judgment and the costs forming part of that amount. The "amount so recovered," referred to in section 989, being more than the amount exacted and paid, because including in addition interest and costs, was probably regarded as needing expia- nation to make it clear that it was not merely the amount exacted that was to be refunded, but also the interest and costs forming part of the recovery; that is, on the judgment. The mention of "costs" is indic- ative of the meaning of "interest." There are no costs after judg- ment; and, as "costs" are costs before judgment, so "interest," in the same connection, is interest before judgment. �The legislation before recited shows that congress has sometimes provided for interest on judgments and sometimes for interest on excessive duties, and has sometimes omitted the mention of interest. The resuit of this review is that whatever may have been the practice under the permanent appropriation in the Bevised Statutes, and under statutes prier to the appropriation bill of 1878, itis clearly expressed in the appropriation bills of 1878, 1879, 1880, and 1881, that where there are judgments against the collectors of customs for duties paid under protest, interest accruing after judgment on the amount of the judg- ment, or on the duties improperly paid, is not to be paid by the gov- ernment either from the permanent appropriation or from the special appropriations. Hence, all has been paid by the government in this case which it is obliged to pay. �2. Under section 989, as there has been a certificate of probable cause in this case, there ean be no execution against the collector. There cannot be an execution against him for the interest from March 1, 1881, on the view that, under section 96(5, interest is due on the ��� �