Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/154

 UNITED STATES ». EVANS. 147 �Bo to reliquidate to a case where the purpose of the reliqui- dation was to correct an error of fact. �It is, however, insisted that because this action was com- menced more tban a year after the original entry of the goods it cannot be maintained. The- argument is that the twenty- first section of the act of June 22, 1874, which provides that the settlement and payment of duties conformably to that section shall, "after the expiration of one year from the time of entry," etc., "be final and conclusive," limits the United States to one year for the commencement of a suit. But I think it is clear that this section contains no limitation upon the time within which an action ean be brought on a re- liquidation of duties duly made by the collector within the year to which his authority to reliquidate extends, and that the reliquidation duly made determines the right of the United States to the duty as reliquidated, unless the importer pro- tests and brings his action thereon in the mode provided by law. �Whether, if there is no reliquidation, but an action is brought within the year for the larger duty, the United States could reeover, is another question, which it is unnecessarj to con- sider. �The plaintiff is entitled to judgment. ���Teb United States v. Evans and others. �{Circuit Court, W. D. Tennessee. March 29, 1880.) �Becoonizancb — SciKE Facias — DBFENcaa!. — Where a recognizance was given for the appearance of a defendant to answer a " charge against him for passing counterfeit money," Iield, that the fact that the indict- ment was detective could not be asserted as a defence to scire fada*, upon such recognizance, after forfeiture. �Same — Samh — SuFFiciENCT OF BoND. — In Tennessee every bond or re- cognizance that would have been good at common law will be regarded as suiBcient statutory bond in any proceeding where it may be ques- tioned. ����