Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/524

 512 FEDERAL REPORTER. �in my judgment, a final decree evidencing a contract between the parties. There is no reservation of jurisdiction to enforce the decree, and if there were it could not be carried ont here. As between pri- vate parties their conduct might be construed as continuing the case open to enforce the decree; but the government cannot be so bound by the acts of its officers, as I have shown. �There can be, in this case, no jurisdiction to enforce any personal liability of the collector of customs. He is not our receiver and never was. He holds his possession under regulations of the treasury de- partment, and as its agent. His acoounting here is voluntary, and his misapprehension of his relations in the premises cannot give us jurisdiction. It is plain the remedy of the defendant is by applica- tion to the executive department to carry out the stipulations of the decree, or to the court of elaims to enforce them, or to congresa to relieve him. �Motion denied. �Note. Consult Thompson v. ?7. S. 98 U. S. 486, 489; U. 8. v. Qillis, 95 U. S. 407, 412; Avery v. U. S. 12 Wall. 304; Bonner v. U. S. 9 Wall. 156; Nations V. Johnson, 24 How. 203; Pennington v. Gibson, 16 IIow. 65; Keeside v. Walkei-, 11 How. 272; Hill v. U. S. 9 How. 386; U. S. v. Brotm, 9 How. 487, 600; U. 8. V. Buehanan, 8 How. 83, 105; U. S. y.Boyd, 5 How. 29; Gratiot v. U. 8. 4 How. 80, 112; U. 8. v. McLemore, 4 How. 286; Milner v. Metz, 16 Pet. 221; U. 8. V. Roheson^ 9 Pet. 319; U. 8. v. Ringgold, 8 Pet. 150; U. 8. v. Clark, 8 Pet. 436; U. 8. v. McDaniel, 7 Pet. 1; U.S. v. Ripley, 7 Pet. 18; U. 8. V. Fillebronne, 7 Pet. 28; The Antelope, 12 Wheat. 546; Hugh v. Higgs, 8 Wheat. 697; U. 8. y.Barker, 2 Wheat. 395; U. 8. v. Hooe, 3 Cranch, 73; V. 8. V. La Vengeance, 3 Dali. 297 ; Meier v. Railway, 4 Dill. 278 ; U. 8. v. Flint, 4 Sawy. 42; U. 8. v. Austin, 2 ClifE. 325; The Othello, 5 Blatchf. 342; S. C. 1 Ben. 43; U. 8. v. Collins, 4 Blatchf. 142; U. 8. v. Davis, 1 Deady, 294; U. S. V. 8m,ith, 1 Bond, 68; Wilder v. U. 8. 3 Sumn. 308; Mezes v. Qreer, 1 McAU. 401 ; Blliott V. Van Voorst, 3 Wall. Jr. 299 ; Fendall v. U. 8. 14 Court Claims, 297; Goodman v. U. 8. 6 Court Claims, 146; 5 Am. Law Reg. 253; 11 Law Eep. (Boston,) 281. ��� �