wrrniu sums v. LENG. 17
uary, 1881, at the amounts deposited and paid by the importer upon
the original entries, with the exception of $11.90, which it is claimed  
was immediately paid by the importer. Thereafter, on the twenty-
fourth of February, 1881, the secretary made a further order, contrary
to his previous decision in favor of the importer, and directed another
reliquidation in accordance with the collector’s original assessment
and liquidation; and under this last order the duties were again
liquidated by the collector on the third of March, 1881, amounting to
$4,015.83 in excess of the amount previously liquidated and paid,
to recover which this suit was brought, with interest to the time of
trial, amounting to $301.17; and a verdict was thereupon directed
for the aggregate sum of $4,317, subject to the opinion of the court,
with leave to either party to file a bill of exceptions, to which direc-
tion the defendant excepted. P;
William O. Wallace, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the United States.
Scudder at- Carter, for defendant. ` A
Baowiv, J. l The small balance of $11.90, which, upon the re-
liquidation in January, 1881, after the original decisionof the secre-
tary of the treasury, was found not to have been covered by the de-
posit at the time of the original entry, must, I think, be assumed to
have been paid in January, 1881, before the date of the last re-
liquidation. It was proved that the money was given by the defend-
ant to his custonrhouse broker for the purpose of payment, and the
latter testified to his belief that he did pay it; and on thetrial it was
not understood that any question was made upon this point. Upon
the facts, therefore, admitted or proved, it appears that after due
protest and appeal to the secretary of the treasury from the original
liquidation of the collector, pursuant to section 2931, the secretary’s
decision thereupon had been communicated to the collector by a for-
mal order, and acted upon by a reliquidation of the duties in con-
formity therewith, and by payment and settlement of the duties in
accordance with the secreta1‘y’s decision. The third liquidation, `
namely, that of March 3, 1881, based upon the subsequent order of
the secretary of the treasury, of February 24, 1881, was made more ·
than a year after the entries upon the first two importations, and
was, therefore, in my judgment, unauthorized and void, under the act
of June 22, 1874. By section 21 of that act, (1 Supp. Bev. St.
81,) it is enacted that--
*‘ Whenever duties upon any imported goods shall have been liquidated and
paid, and such goods shall have been delivered to the owner, such settlement
of duties shall, after the expiration of one year from the time ofentry, in the
absence of fraud, and in the absence of protest by the owner, be final and con-
clusive upon all parties." '
This statute is binding upon the government, (U.S. v. Phelps, 17
Blatchf. 316;) so that after one year from the date of entry, no previous
settlement of the duties, in the absence of fraud or protest, can be
v.18,no.1——~2