higher degree of intelligence than they seem to have displayed; and this extraordinary, verdict may find its possible explanation in a prejudice excited by defendant's insistence on a strict application of the rules of proof. By whatever cause it was induced, however, it is clearly not sustained by the evidence, and should be set aside. Allusion was made upon the argument to the denial of defendant's motion to take the case from the jury upon the whole proof. Counsel refer to a rule familiar to state practice, viz., that where the court would set aside a verdict if against the defendant, it should nonsuit when asked so to do. A nonsuit in a state court and a direction of a verdict for defendant in a federal court, however, do not leave the plaintiffin the same position. In the one case he can pay up his costs, get together more evidence, and sue again; finding in the nonsuit no bar to his recovery. To such new action, however, the judgment entered upon direction of a verdict in a federal court would be a bar. Insurance Co. v. Broughton, 109 U. S. 121, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99; Dscanyan v. Arms OJ., 103 S. 261. In· denying the defendant's motion to direct a verdict in his favor. it was stated that such denial was induced by the consideration that the defendant was not thereby irreparably prejudiced, the'motion for a neW trial securing him against any wrong from 8 verdict founded 'on insufficient proof. At the same time, it appeared to the co'urt that, in view of the suggestion of additional proof made on the motion to reopen the case, it would be unfair to the plaintiff to prevent him from going to a jury either in this case or in any other. He might have been irreparably injured by the direction of a verdict. Let the verdict be set aside.
PREBLE t1. BATES
(Olrauft Court, D. Ma8sachusett8. December 10, 1889.)
1. BILL OJ' EXCEPTIONS-IN FEDERAL A bill of exceptions, so far as regards the iluty of the attorney taking ft, should be considered as Jiledwhen taken to the clerk's office and placed in the hands of the proper ofticer for filing. The form of indorsement placed 'on it by the clerk is immaterial. '
Rev. at. U. S. 5 914, requiring the pleading, practice, and forms in the circuit court to conform as near as may be to those of tlie courts of the state in which it is held, does not govern the preparation and perfecting of a bill of exceptions. in re Iron 00., 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 150, followed.
SAllIE-TIME OF PERFECTING.
In the federal courts the rule is that the bill of excevtions must be signed at the term in which judgment was rendered, not the term at which trial was had. ,
Samuel Hoar, for defendants.
COLT, J. The question now before the court is whether a bill of exceptions. can be allowed in; this case. A .verdict was rendered' for' the
Btttler, for plaintiff.
andQJ;lDecember'22., the counsel for the consenting, 2() d.fI.ys were allowed the defeJ;ldants within which to file al>i:U of On January 11,1889,01' within the 20 days, cQ\lU$el for the took their proposed bill ofexceptions to the clerk's office of the circ).l},tcqurt, and handed it to tile deputy-clerk, who it,iO!,pt/ncil, the following memorandum,: "Rec'd Jan. 11, 18;89." The obje9tion ilj! made that this was Dot a filing of the bill of and that :consequently no bill isllow before the court. I canllotsee the force of objection. ,So far as the counsel for the deis concerned, the:pm should be considered as filed when taken tot,he (Jferk's an<J" ,placed in hands of the proper officer for :The form of ind()f13enlent which the clerk, as a matter of practice or of (l()nvenience, puts ,uPQQ., the paper is immaterial, and cannot affect the J;ights,of the parties. was given; the plaintiff's counsel of ,the filiQ-g of thepi}l, or a copy was served, upon him, or whether what \Va, c;l()newasincc;>nformity with the practice in the state courts, (Pub.St:irmnaterial ; becaose,thepractice and rules ,of the, dO,not ,apPlN in court, ta,ken for tpa, in the Bllpreme court ajudgment oftha cir,cu;it ,8q.q. sucJ1rules ,J.!.ndpractice,' preparation, pera bill of exceptions, l,lXe not within section 91J.l t4e ·· Inre Iron 00., 128U.: 8.54;4, 553,,'9 Sup. . ;!;:: \, , , ",.Ct. : the the,al1owance of p.py bill of ,exllePti,9ps inthi!3 t1:lat ,8, hUlaf, exceptions cannot be signed after the term at which the trial took place, except with the consent of counsel, or the express order of the court, and. that in the present case more than one term' has elapsed since the trial. After a careful examination of the cases referred to by counsel, I conceive the rule to be this,-that a ,Qj.ll pf excE!ptionsmus.t be signed at the term in which judgment rendered. This rule is subject to certain exceptions, dependent updilspecialeitcumstances,whieh, h6\ve\7er, 'it is not necessary to consider in this ,1 adm,it tha,t the expression is s.ometimes phrase, " "Ilt The stated by Chief Justice WAITE, in Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U. S. 249, in: the following If!.p.gq,f!.ge;,< ,. '" : ; ; " , ' , ,";As ,:,/JJ,; S;, 651, the ppw,erto reduc,e exceptions taken at the trIal to form, aDd 'to havl:l.them signe4 and filed, was" under ordinary circumstances. confined to a time not laterthantbe term at wbich ,the. judgment was rendered. This; we think, is 'the true rule, and one to should be no 'exceptions. without the court during the term. or consent of the parties. save under very extraordinary cir' cumstances."
· :,j.l;: .:': .
"f " '
In the present case the motion for a not finally disposed of until October 12,1889, and no judgment has as yet been entered upon . 'i,AS ,SQon' as the n)Oti(jPI for a, new'trial was overruled, the , ,bill,Qf allowed.' . The
consideration of the bill of exceptions' was the motion for a new trial was decided,because thatmotionmighi M've been granted, when the exceptions would· fail, as anew trial wolIid' take place. The course of proceedings in this case shOws the 'l'llldjustice of the rule that it is the term at which judgment is rendered, rather than the term at which the trial was had, that a bill of exceptions must be signed. For these reasons, I shall hold that the bill of exceptions in this dtse; filed by the defendants with the clerk, is properly before the court.
et al. v. MAGONt,
(Oircuit OlrUrl, S. D. New Yoric. December II, lSS9.)
CO'STOlIfB DUTIES-ApPRAISEMENT-FoREIGN MONEY-8HANGHAI TAELS.
Small masses of silver, 1I0t always uniform in size, nor regular in shape, but ClODforming generally ro an oval' shape like that 0'1 8 bat turned upside dowll t or of a Chinese shae. marked by an officer selected, by the consensus of Chinese Dankel'll with characters Indicating tbe fineness. and the number of taels, or the weight of the silver therein, and circulated in China as the only moneyot accouIit, are coins of China; and the value of a tael of the same is a J?roper subject of annual estimation by' the direcror of the mint, and of proclamation on the 1st day of January by tile seoretaryof the treasury, within the of seotion,S5M, Rev. St..'U. S.
If tbevalue af a fareigncain be estimated by, the directOr oithe mint upon the basiilused by him in estimating the values of other foreign coins'of the. same' metal, proclaimed by the secretary of the treasury on the 1st day'ofJanuary'of any year and be proolaimed by the ,Secretary of the tre$Sury during a SUbsequent month' of the same year. the direcror,jn the absence ,allY proof ro the contrary, will be presumedro have performedlusdentire duty, and rohave made, such estimation of th!l, value of such foreign ooin at tlJetime required by said sootion8564, and,theproolamatiOIl. such SUbSElQJlelltmonth, by the secretary of th'e treasury of its value' SO estimated, 1S l10 comlllianqe by him with the requiremeDts of that seotiOI1> ;
", ' '
BAlIE-PRbciAMATION AS TO VALUE.
At Aciion to recover back duties: The plaintiffs made one importation August 28, and another September 21, 1886, intb the port of New York, from Shanghai, China, of certain dressed furs, which were invoiced' in taels. The fendant, 8S collector of customs at that port, pursuant to the decision of' the treasury department, (S. 6839,) made April 3, 1885, converted the taals at the rate of $1.175 ,each into money of accouht of the United' States; and on August 28 and September 22, 1886, respectively, the duties in, the case of these importations, as estimated by the 'proper officers, at the legal rate thertlof, on the' amounts' of such "money so obtained;were paid by the plaihtiffs to the defendant as such collector. On J anuary 31 and February'l, 1887,respectively, the duties in the of these importations 'WElre-liquidated. by the. proper officers at th'J same' amounts as tha estimated amounts. THereafter, within the time ra-; quired by law, theplairttiffsprotested against the exaction of duties on' the.se amounts, claiming thatduty should }:lave been eo ·obtained' by oonverting thesetaels iiito money of account' of the' United States,at thEf rMe of$1. 1094 'each; and,having made a.ppeals