IN RE DUNNIl'iG.
posit for him, subject to the law governing such deposits, and that the relation of debtor and creditor was not established between him and the bank. We find no error in the decree of the circuit court that the receiver pay the appellee tbe full amount of the fund so deposited to. its credit. But the .objection which is urged by the appellants to the allowance of interest on the claim must be sustained. The receiver disallowed the claim, and the suit was brought to obtain a decree for its payment. No interest is chargeable against the fund in. the receiver's hands, based upon. his erroneous action in disallowing elaims. It is his function, by and under the direction. of the comptroller, to disburse the fund according to law. In the matter of the allowance or disallowance of claims he must exercise his judgment. If he make an erroneous dedsion, the law does not contemplate that the other creditors shall suffer therefor. If interest is allowed to the appellee, the dividends payable to the other tredit, 01'13 will by that amount be reduced. In White Y. Knox, 111 U. S. 784, 4 Sup. Ct. 686, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said:
"The only claims the comptroller can recognize in the settlement of the affairs of the bank are those which are shown, by proof satisfactory to him. or by the adjudication of a competent comt, to have had their origin in something done before the insolvency. It is clearly his duty, therefore, in paying dividends, to take the value of the claim at that time as the basis of distribution; If interest is added on one claim after that date, before the pcrcentage of dividend is calculated, it should be upon all, otherwise the distribution would be according to different rules, and not ratably, as the law requires."
The demand for interest in this case is not based upon any action of the bank itself before insolvency. It rests solely upon the disallowance of the claim bv the receiver. The cause will be remand· ed to the circuit court, instructions t.o so modify the decree as to disallow the interest upon the appellee's claim. In other respects the decree will be affirmed.
In re DUXNING. \Clrcult Court of Appeals, Xinth Circuit. No. 538.
ApPEAY, AND ERROR-ASSIGNMEKT OF ERRORS.
May 23. 1899.)
'Vhere, on appeal from a final order of the district court granting a discharge to a bankrupt, no; assignment of errors is filed in sueh court, as required by rule 11 of the circuit courts of appeal (31 C. C. A. cxlvi., 90 Fed. cxlv!.), tbe judgment of tbe district court will be affirmed.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California. Milton K. Young, for appellant. Franklin P. Bull, for appellee. Before GILBERT and MORROW, Circuit Judges and HAWLEY. District .Judge. , .
94 FEDERAL REPORTER.
l1is\::hargEdrom all debts and claims which were made provaof rehtting to bankruptey whieh existed on't e3'dday 'of- September, 18ll8. No assignment of erl'orswas fi!ed ' ,the district an«;J. ,. the requirements of· our rule ·.. Oli such the JUdgment of the dIstrIct court WIll be' afflrt#eq: U. S. v; Goodrich, 4 O. O. A. 160; 54 Fed. 21; Insurance .. Odnoley,llC. 0: A.H6,63 Fed. 180.. We place our whoBY'uvon the ground indicated, in the judgment 'of hope tlIat attention may: be (}rawn to the necessity of compliance with therul'e. It may beadded,that upon 'the hearing of the cause not MIS' was no "plain error not 'a!ilsigned"suggested, but, upon the contra;ry;the court was convinced that upon the merits the decision .of ,;' district court· was not erroneous.' 'the
froin, th¢ ;/lnat.order of the' dis.trict court grllnting Eber T. Dun-
,9lIJ,3,J;i:RT, Circuit Judge.. The appeal was taken in this case
IllMBLEN .;v.. LlNPQLN LAND 90:
(CirGuitcourt. D; Nebraska. June 23,
PUJlt,IO LANDS-<JoN'rROL OF DISP<lSITION-POWERSOll' OONGRESS.
paramountconuol 'over the disposition of the public land! of the'tInited States remains in congress" and the fact that a contest over the 'right or entry or such lands is pending the land departwent, a creation ot congress, and not of COD.fltitution; does not deprive congress of such paralllount control, alld it may at any time, by an act passe'd.f6r that purpose,withdraw such contest from the jurifldiction of the department and itself 'determioe the rights of the parties.
SAxE4DE\:mlION OF OOlilTESTBY SECRET,.I.Ry,...;.RIQR'r OF SVCCESSOR 'ro ANlilUL.
A of th.e interior has IW power to .a,nnul a decision or his predeces!!or which determines the rights of the' parties to a contest for entry ot. 'public 'lands; sl1chdetermination being a jlldiCial act, which can only be reviewed by the courts.
.. SAlIlE-CONTEST OF ENTRy-RIGHTS OF CONTEST,.I.lIlT,
8ectlon 2 of the act of May 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 140), giVing a contestant who has paid the land-office fees and procured the cancellation of a prior entry of public lands a prererred right to enter the same, gives such contestant no vested rightii in the land until the cancellation ot the eXisting entry; and lience, where the decisions of the land officers, 80 far asR contest ,had progressed, were advef1!.e .to the contestant, and during the pendency of the proceedings congress deprived the land department of further jurisdiction OY the passage of a special act confirming the title or the entryman, the contestant acquired no vested rights in the land which a court. can recognize or enforce.
SAME--'-PNVHENT Oll' CONTEa'1' FEES.
The payment of contest fees andcostfl by a COIltel;ltant or an entry ,of public 'land gives. him no right in the land, unless the contefit resultS·in the cancellation of the prior entry.
On Demurrer to Amended Bill. T. J. Mahoney and E. R. Duffie, for'cdmplainant. J. W. Deweese and F. E. Bishop, for defendants. District Judge. In the bin demurred to it ts that on September 19, 1885, one George F. Weed made-a cash pre-emption