Opinion of the Court.

adds that "any person not made a party may become such by filing his cross-petition," and that his rights "shall thereupon be fully considered and determined." Sec. 14 is as follows: "Payment of compensation adjudged may, in all cases, be made to the county treasurer, who shall, on demand, pay the same to the party thereto entitled, taking receipt therefor, or payment may be made to the party entitled, his, her or their conservator or guardian."

These sections make it clear that under the pleadings the judgment entered upon this report or verdict should either have directed payment to the plaintiff, or that the deposit with the county treasurer was for his benefit. In other words, Convers's right to this money should have been settled by the judgment, and not left open to further inquiry.

It is unnecessary to consider what rule obtains when the railroad company puts in issue the fact or extent of the claimant's title or interest. It is enough to dispose of the case here presented.

While the precise question does not appear to have been determined by the Supreme Court of the State, its rulings are in this direction. Bowman v. Railway Company, 102 Illinois, 459; Johnson v. Railway Company, 116 Illinois, 521; Suver v. Railway Company, 123 Illinois, 293. In the first of these cases it was held that the provision in the statute, that several tracts of lands belonging to different persons might be included in one petition, and the compensation for each separately assessed by the same or different juries, extended to cases where different persons had distinct interests in the same tract, and that in such cases the damage to each might be separately ascertained. In the second, the court decided that each owner might have his damages assessed before a separate jury, and was entitled to his single appeal from the judgment; and, also, that, if a cross-petition set forth only evidence of claimant's title, and was uncertain in the description of his interest in the property, such defect was ground for demurrer, but did not justify a dismissal on motion. And, in the third, the petition of the railroad company, averring that four persons named had or claimed an interest in a tract described, and there being

Syllabus.

no other averment in the petition or cross-petition of separate interests in such parties, a finding of the gross amount to be paid to them was sustained. In that case, also, it was held that certain defects alleged to exist in the petition must, to be taken advantage of, be challenged by demurrer. These cases all indicate that proceedings under the eminent domain act. may be divided into distinct controversies between the railroad company and each party owning or having a separate interest in any tract; and that a controversy, thus separated, is to proceed according to the ordinary rules concerning trials, with a certainty in verdict and a finality in judgment. They sustain the conclusion we have heretofore expressed in this case. The judgment will be

Reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to enter a judgment in terms securing to Convers the amount of the damages found by the jury.

The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the decision of this case.

HEDDEN v. ISELIN.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 14. Argued January 7, 1892. — Decided January 26, 1892.

In a suit to recover back customs duties paid under protest, where the only question tried was, whether in re-appraisement proceedings the importer was denied rights secured to him by law; Held,

(1) It was proper to admit in evidence a protest filed by the importer with the re-appraisers, as a paper showing what rights the importer claimed, and especially his claim that the merchant appraiser was not qualified;

(2) A motion to direct a verdict for the defendant was properly denied, the court having ruled in accordance with the decision of this court in Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. S. 310, and having instructed the jury fully and properly, and there being no exception to the charge, and a question proper for the jury.

Opinion of the Court.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for plaintiff in

error.

Mr. Francis Lynde Stetson for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action at law, brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in June, 1886, by William E. Iselin, John G. Neeser and Alfred Von Der Muhl, against Edward L. Hedden, collector of the port of New York, and removed by the defendant into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, to recover the sum of $2124.14, with interest from June 26, 1886, as an alleged excess of customs duties, paid under protest, on the importation of silks by the steamer Normandie, entered June 20, 1885, and of satins composed of cotton and silk, by the steamer Belgenland, entered June 18, 1885. The case was tried before Judge Wheeler and a jury, in December, 1886, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for $2124.14 on which a judgment was entered for them for that amount and costs, November 5, 1887. To review that judgment, the defendant has brought a writ of error.

On the appraisement of the goods, they had been increased in valuation more than ten per cent above the invoice valuation, and additional duty and a penal duty being imposed in each case, the importers asked for a re-appraisement, pursuant to statute, before the general appraiser and a merchant appraiser.

No question of the classification or rating of the goods imported was presented; but the importers claimed that, in the re-appraisement proceedings, they were denied rights which were secured to them by law. The court remarked, in its charge to the jury: "The only question we have to try is, whether there has been a substantial re-appraisement according to the law and according to the rights of these importers;"

Opinion of the Court.

and the court stated the questions which it submitted to the jury as follows: "If the plaintiffs were not cut off from any substantial right and the appraisers followed their own judg ment and discretion fairly and really, then return a verdict for defendants. If the appraisers were controlled by some outside influence, so that they didn't act their own judgment, then return a verdict for the plaintiffs. Or, if the plaintiffs were cut off from their fair chance to be there when the appraisal was made, from seeing their goods and pointing out the quality to the appraisers, then return a verdict for the plaintiffs."

The first error alleged by the defendant is that the court erred in admitting, under objection, a paper of protest filed with the re-appraisers during the proceedings in respect to the re-appraisement of the goods imported by the Normandie. A witness, Mr. Barnett, who had represented the plaintiffs in the proceedings and had charge of the two importations throughout testified that, at the time of the re-appraisement, he delivered to Mr. Brower, the general appraiser, a written paper, addressed to the latter and the merchant appraiser, a copy of which appears in the bill of exceptions, stating that the importers demanded to be present during the re-appraisement and to present personally, as well as by their employés and their agents, and also by witnesses desired to be furnished, fully informed upon the subject matter, testimony as to the true dutiable value of the importation by the Normandie, and to have reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to test and disprove testimony to be introduced against the correctness of the invoice; and alleging that the merchant appraiser, Mr. Booth, was not qualified to act under the statute. The defendant objected to the admission of that paper in evidence, as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; but the objection was overruled and the defendant excepted.

We see no error in receiving the paper in evidence. It was part of the proceedings which took place before the re-appraisers, and appears to have been presented to them for the purpose of showing what rights the importers claimed, and especially their claim that the merchant appraiser was not qualified. It was objected to as a whole; and it was not put

Opinion of the Court.

in as evidence that the importers had the rights which they thus claimed, but merely to show that they had protested seasonably.

It is also assigned for error that the court ought to have directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant. At the close of the plaintiffs' testimony, the defendant moved the court to direct such a verdict. But the court declined to do So. The defendant excepted, and then put in his evidence; and, at the close of the evidence on both sides, he renewed his motion for the direction of a verdict for him, on the ground that, on the whole evidence, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. That motion was denied, and the defendant excepted.

The bill of exceptions does not state that it contains the whole of the evidence. In denying the motion which was thus made at the close of the plaintiff's testimony, the court, having heard full argument on the point on both sides, referred to a circular from the Secretary of the Treasury, which had been read in evidence and is set forth at length in the bill of exceptions, dated June 9, 1885, and being No. 6957, on the subject of the re-appraisement of merchandise, and directed to the general appraiser at New York City, and the material parts of which are set forth at length on pages 316, 317 and 318 in the report of the case of Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. S. 310. The court said, in its remarks denying the motion for a verdict for the defendant, that in conformity with the views of the Secretary, expressed in the circular, the re-appraisers were not a court to hear witnesses and counsel; that the importers would have a right, on the re-appraisement, to attend, to see that the re-appraisers had their goods and to call attention to any of the qualities of the goods; that the court expressed no opinion as to whether the importers would have the right to see such testimony in writing, applicable to the value of the goods, as the re-appraisers might take; that, on the testimony of the witness Barnett, the jury might think that the importers were cut off from a fair right to be there when their goods were examined (not when the re-appraisers were deliberating as to the value of the goods); and that the question of fact as to