Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/702

 688 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �and the remarks of the jndge concemiiig it are dicta. Notwithsfand- ing our high regard for the supreme court of lowa, we are unable to concur in the view expressed by Rothrock, J., on this question. �The motion to remand is overruled. �LovBj D. J., concurs. ���United States v. Moselt and others. �(District Court, D. Colorado. July 25, 1881.) �1. Btjecties— Bonds— Ambndmbiits. �Where property nnder seizure la delivered to a claimant on his giving a bond conditioned that he would pay the value of the property into court if it were condemned as forfeited by the final decree, Tield, that the liability of surettes on the bond is flxed on the renderlng of such a decree, though the Ilbel on which It was rendered was amended subsequently to the execution of the bond. �A. P. Van Dmee, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the United States, �Latimer e Morrow, for defendants. �HoFFMAN, D. J. The ground of forfeiture set forth in the original libel in this case was, in substance, that the master and crew of the Bchooner San Diego had, without the consent of the Alaska Com- mercial Company, taken and killed seals in the waters adjacent to the islands of St. Paul and St. George, in Alaska territory, in viola- tion of section 1967 of the Revised Statutes. �The amended bill alleges the killing to have been done "within the limits of Alaska territory, and in the waters thereof, to-wit, on and near Otter island, and in the neighborhood of and adjacent thereto, in violation of section 1956 of the Revised Statutes. �The killing alleged in either case was unlawful and contrary to the provisions of title 13, c. 3, of the Revised Statutes, enacted for the protection and preservation of fur-bearing animais in Alaska territory. �But the pleader was misinformed as to the precise locus in quo where the killing was eliected. He was therefore allowed to amend his libel so as to conform to the facts. On this amended libel the vessel and skins were condemned. The claimants had previously given bonds for the appraised value of the vessel and cargo. The present suits are brought on these bonds, and it is contended on the part of the sureties that the eflfect of allowing the amendment which bas been mentioned was to exonerate them from all liability under their bonds, by means of which they obtained a delivery to them of the property seized. ��� �