WHITE V. ABTHUB. 81 �4. Same— Interebt as Damages on Writ of Error. �The allowance of interest as damages on a writ of error, under section 1010, Kev. St., and under ruie 23, Bup. Ct., and the form of mandate afflrming, imith interest, a judgment where collecter is plaintili in error, does not aftect the question. They belong solely to putting the judgment in shape. 0. Same— Interest on Judgment in— Liabilitt of Ooi.lector. �There is no personal liability on the part of the collecter, after the making of a certiflcate of probable cause, to pay the interest on judgments obtained against him. Under section 989, Rev. St., he is not liable for such interest if the government is not �U. 8. V. Sh&rman, 98 U. S. 565, and Erakine v. Van Arsdale, 15 Wall. 75, cited and explained. �Circular of the commissioner of customs of March 16, 1881, upheld. �At Law. �Hartley e Coleman, for plaintiffs. �Stewart L. Woodford, Dist. Atty., for defendant. �Blatchfoed, C. J. This is a suit against a late collector of the port of New York to recover back money paid to him for custom duties, and by him paid into the treasury in the performance of hia ofBcial duty. On the first of March, 1881, a judgment in this suit was docketed in this court in favor of the plaintiffs, and against the defendant, for $2,295.90. Prior to that, and at the trial of the action, this court, under section 989 of the Revised Statutes, made a certifia cate of probable cause. It is provided as follows by section 989 : �" When a recovery is had in any suit or proceeding against a collecter or other offlcer of the revenue, for any act donc by him, or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to him, and by him paid into the treasury in the performance of his officiai duty, and the court certifies that there was prob- able cause for the act done by the collecter or other officer, or that he acted under the directions of the secretary of the treasury or other proper officer of the government, no execution shall issue against such collector or other officer but the araount so received shall upon final judgment be provided for and paid out of the proper appropriation from the treasury." �On the sixteenth of March, 1881, the commissioner of customs addressed a circular to the first auditor of the treasury, stating that in view of the decision of the supreme court in U. S. v. Sherman, 98 U. S. 565, and of the decision of the first comptroller of the treasury in StephanVs Case, 26 Int. Rev. Rec. 313, nothing would thereafter be allowed or paid by the United States on judgments against customs offieers, under section 989, beyond the amount recovered on final judgment, excluding interest on the amount of the judgment. The decision in U. S. v. Sherman was made at the October term, 1878, and that in Stephani's Case in August, 1880. v.lO.no.l— 6 ��� �
