On the authority of
United States v. Hill, 123 U.
S. 681, it is
held that an action against
sureties to recover on a bail bond conditioned for the appearance
of the principal to answer to an indictment for making and forging
checks against an assistant treasurer is not a case for the
enforcement of a revenue law within the intent of Rev.Stat. §
699.
No interest can be recovered in an action by the United States
upon a bail bond conditioned for the appearance of a person to
answer to an indictment for forgery.
These were actions against sureties on bail bonds. The case is
stated in the opinion of the court.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases are suits brought upon two bonds given by John F.
Broadhead and his sureties conditioned for his appearance in the
District Court of the United States for the
Page 127 U. S. 213
District of California to answer two separate indictments for
making and forging checks on the Assistant Treasurer of the United
States at San Francisco. The penalty of each of these bond was
$5,000, and according to well settled principles, no interest can
be recovered in such a suit as this, nor can any recovery be had
beyond the amount prescribed in these instruments, except for
costs.
Section 3 of the "Act to facilitate the disposition of cases in
the Supreme Court of the United States, and for other purposes,"
approved February 16, 1875, 18 Stat. 315, c. 77, § 3, fixing the
amount necessary to give jurisdiction to this Court of writs of
error from the circuit courts at a sum in excess of $5,000, applies
to the United States as well as to other parties, except in the
cases enumerated in § 699 of the Revised Statutes. None of these
exceptions applies to the present cases.
It was attempted in
United States v. Hill, 123 U.
S. 681,
ante, to establish the proposition that
that case was for the enforcement of a revenue law, and therefore
came within the exceptions specified. It was, however, overruled by
this Court, and the opinion in that case forbids the idea that
these cases can be treated as an exception to the general rule.
As the act of 1875 above cited requires that there shall be an
amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, exceeding $5,000, and as
no such recovery can be had in the cases now under
consideration,
The writs are dismissed.