
    JACOB Y. SHANTZ ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 15266.
    Decided June 11, 1888.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    Imported goods are seized for undervaluation. The matter is compromised by payment of the duties claimed. Subsequently the Supreme Court decides in a similar case that there was no undervaluation. The parties seek to recover back the moneys paid. In another case they offer a specific sum as a compromise and deposit the money. Before the Secretary of the Treasury accepts the offer they withdraw it and offer a less amount. The Secretary declines the reduced offer and orders the deposit returned. Before it is returned a subsequent Secretary orders it to be treated as a compromise and covered into the Treasury.
    I. A payment of an overcharge of custom dues as a compromise whereby the parties obtained possession of their goods then under seizure can not be recovered back in an action in this court.
    II. Where an importer offered a certain amount as a compromise, accompanied by a deposit of the money, but withdrew the offer before it was accepted, an action lies to recover back the money.
    
      The Reporters' statement; of the case:
    fhe following are the'facts as found by the court:
    I. On or about the 26th day of July, 1884, the claimants shipped from Canada to the United States several lots of vegetable buttons, consigned to different parties in the United States, and the same were entered at the United State's through tne United States custom-house at Detroit, in the State of Michigan. The goods were there seized by the custom-house officers under the provisions of Bevised Statutes section 2839, for the alleged reason that in the invoice for entry they were fraudulently undervalued, in this, that the cost of the cartons and packing were not added to the .value of the goods as required according to the interpretation of the law as euforced ■by the customs officers under rulings of the Treasury Department at that time.
    II. July 31, 1884, the Secretary of the Treasury addressed the following letter, signed by him, to the collector of customs:
    “Teeasttby Department,
    
      “ Washington, D. 0., July 31,1884.
    “ Collector op Customs,
    “ Detroit, Mich.:
    
    “Sir: Your letter of the 28th instant is received, submitting an application from M. B. Shantz for the release of the following merchandise, seized under section 2839, E. S.: Vegetable ivory buttons, valued at $575.65.
    “ You are hereby authorized to release the goods under section 3081, E. S., on payment of the appraised value and the expenses of seizure.”
    The goods were thereupon appraised, the claimants paid the appraiser’s values and expenses of seizure, amounting to $657.95, and the goods were released to them. After the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oberteuffer v. Robertson (116 U. S. E., 499), the Secretary of the Treasury issued the following circular:
    “ Treasury Department,
    “ Washington, D. C., February 2, 1886.
    “ To collectors of customs and others:
    
    “Appended hereto will be found a copy of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the suit of Oberteuffer et al. v. Robertson, which involved the question as to the liability to duty of cartons and other inside coverings of imported merchandise, and the cost of packing the same in the outside packages.
    “The merchandise which was the subject of the suit consisted of gloves and hosiery put up in cartons or paper boxes of one half dozen and one dozen pairs each. The importers (plaiutiffs) on making entry at the custom-house excluded the cost of such cartons and packing charges, while the appraiser in returning the dutiable value of the goods added to such entered value the cost of the cartons and packing, whereupon duty was assessed by the collector on the addition thus maue.
    “ It will be seen that the Supreme Court now decides that such action on the part of the appraiser and collector was erroneous, and that under the provisions of section 7 of the act of March 3, 1883, neither the cost ot the cartons and other inside coverings nor the charges incident to the packing of goods for shipment are elements of dutiable value.
    “ The rule thus laid down in this decision will be applied to all future importations and unliquidated entries, and, also, to all entries where the requirements of law as to protest, appeal, institution of suit, etc., have been fully complied with.
    “ C. S. Fairchild,
    
      “Acting Secretary.”
    
    III. The claimants had previously imported other like goods from Canada into the United States, upon which they had paid duties according to valuations, which did not include the cost of cartons and packing. Action was bad thereon, as the following correspondence and documents:
    “No. 1
    “Judy 29, 1884.
    
      u To Hon. Chas. J. Folg-ee,
    “ Sec’y of
    
    “ We commenced shipping buttons with separate packing at ten cents per gross February last, and have sent to New York eighty-four hundred and eighty gross; to Cincinnati, eleven hundred fifty-two gross; Chicago, forty-five hundred and twenty groas; to Cleveland, eight hundred gross, aggregating fourteen thousand nine hundred and,fifty-two gross. In addition to the seven hundred and fifty gross shipped to Detroit, and appraised value six hundred fifty-seven dollars paid the United States by us, we propose to pay additional duty ten cents per gross for all our shipments of this character, except the Detroit lots, which amounts to three hundred seventy-three dollars and eighty cents, and wish to avoid further seizures. We will include said ten cents per gross in regular invoices in future. Special Agent Gavett is here awaiting your instructions, and also wires you now.
    “ Jacob
    “ No. 2.
    “ July 29,1884.
    “ To Hon. Chas. J. Folgee,
    “ Sec’y of Treaty:
    
    “ Have examined Shantz & Co.’s books, and am convinced their statement just wired is correct. They seem to have been misled relative to exemption from duty for packing. I believe the acceptance of their offer will best promote the interests of the Gov’t and sufficiently punish them. If satisfactory I will collect theamount and distribute the same to proper collectors. Please answer here. I mailed you full reports last Sunday from Detroit.
    “ Wjsi. A. Gavett,
    “ Special Agent.”
    
    “No. 3.
    “Treasury Depaetment,
    “ Washington, D. G., July
    
    “COLLECTOR OE CUSTOMS,
    “ Detroit, Mich.:
    
    
      “ SiE : I transmit an from J. Y. Shantz & Sons, to compromise their liabilities arising from the alleged fraudulent entry of certain buttons. Inform the proponent that before considering their offer it will be necessary for them to deposit the sum offered.
    “ Chas. E. Coon,
    
      “Acting Secretary.
    
    “ Please report all the facts and- enclosures, with copies of all papers bearing upon the case, and such recommendations as you may deem proper, for action by the Department.
    “ No. 4.
    “Oeeicb oe
    “Special Agent Treasury Department
    “ Detroit, July 31,1884.
    
      “ Hon. William Livingstone, Jr.,
    “ Collector Customs, Detroit:
    
    “ Dear Sir : I have the honor to hand you herewith ($373.80) three hundred seventy-three and dollars, from Jacob T. Shantz & Sous, of Berlin, Ontario, in proposed payment of duties at 25 per cent., or 10c. per gross on 14,952 gross of vegetable ivory buttons, exported from Canada to the United. States by said firm, as follows:
    To New York. Gross.. CO
    
      “ .. lO
    
      “ ..
    
    “ .. o
    Total. 14,952
    “At 10c., i,495.20, at 25 per cent.=$373.80.
    am just in receipt of a telegram from the Hon. Secretary of the Treasury dated this day, instructing me to deliver said money to you for deposit.
    “ I have secured complete list of Canadian values of vegetable jvory buttons, and will furnish your office copy of same soon as 1 have time to make it, and will forward complete list to the Dept, in order that other ports may have the benefit of this valuable information, which will enable the U. S. to collect, full amount of duties on all such goods in future importations.,
    “Wi. A. Gavett,
    “ Special Agent
    
    “No. 5.
    “ Custom-House, Detroit, Mich.,
    
      Officef August 2.1884.
    “ Hon. Chas. J. Folger,
    “ Sech] of the Treasury, Washington, D. O.
    
    Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge-" the receipt of Department letter dated (18412 — D. L.) the 30th ultimo, enclosing an offer of J. Y. Shantz & Sons, of Berlin, Ontario, to eompromise their liabilities arising from alleged fraudulent entry of certain buttons, and also telegram of Special Agent Gavett on the same subject, and asking report thereon.
    “ Referring to this matter I have to state that the sum offered by Messrs. Shantz & Sons has already been paid into this office and the Department so notified under date of the 31st ultimo.
    “ I enclose herewith copy of letter from Special Agent Ga-vett handed to me with the money, this letter being the only paper on our files bearing on this case.
    “ It appears from above letter that this money ($373.80) represents the duty, at 25 per cent, ad valorem on the 10c. per gross charged for “ packing,” separately billed and not included in consular invoices, in the case of every importation of buttons sold by them, with the exception of those seized here and released on payment of appraised value under Department letters dated (18913 — D. L.) July 28 and (18412 — D. L.) July 31,1884 (seizures 980, 981, 982, 983, and 984).
    “ I believe, from the conversation I have had with Mr. M. Shantz and the action of his firm since this question of duty on the charges for “ packing” was brought to their attention, that it was not their intention to defraud the revenue, but that they were misled by the representations of their agent, who was directly interested in' making sales in the U. S. Believing this, it seems to me it would be for tlie best interests of the Government to accept their offer, and this would be my opinion even if this 10c. per gross charge for “ packing,” added to the invoice price of the goods, would not make the Canadian value (and whether it does or not I have not been, advised), for should the Department decline the offer it would have to depend upon the proceeds of sale of such of the goods as could be identified and seized.
    “ Enclosures of Department letter returned herewith. ■
    “ W. Livingstone, Jr.,
    “ Colle&tor.”
    “No. 6.
    “Oeeice Special Agent,
    “Treasttby Department,
    “ Detroit, August 5, 1884.
    “ Hon. Chas. J. Folger,
    “ Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. 0.:
    
    “ Sir : Respectfully referring to our proposition telegraphed to you on the 29th ultimo from Berlin, Ont., to pay to the United States $373.80, being 25 per cent, on 10 cents per gross on all the buttons exported for us (except the five lots to Detroit seized and released on payment of appraised value, $657.95, for whifeh separate invoices for packing were furnished consignees by our firm), we now hereby propose to pay an additional amount of ($1,695.91) sixteen hundred and ninety-five dollars and ninety-one cents in offer of compromise of all liabilities and in lieu of further seizures or proceedings in relation to buttons exported by us and shipped to parties in the United States since and including Feb. 14,1884.
    “ Schedule herewith attached, and marked pages 3 and 4, shows the details of. this proposed settlement, aggregating $1,695 91, and when it is remembered that we have paid $657.95 and $373.80, we feel that our punishment has been indeed severe.
    “Your favorable action at an early day is earnestly solicited.
    “ J. Y. Shantz & Sons,
    
      “ Berlin, Out.”
    
    “No. 7.
    “ Office of
    “Special Agent, Treasury Department,
    
      “ Detroit, August 6, 1884.
    “ Hon. Vi. Livingston, Jr.,
    “ Collector of Customs, Detroit, Mich.:
    
    “ Dear Sir : Herewith enclosed please find $1,695.91 (sixteen hundred ninety-ñve dollars and ninety-one cents), from Jacob Y. Shantz & Sons, of Berlin, Ont., together with propositions from said firm for settlement of all liabilities arising from the exportation by them, and importations by various firms at New York, Cleveland, Chicago, and Cincinnati, of vegetable ivory buttons from and including the 14th day of February, 1884, that being the date on which said firm made their first consignment of said buttons, for which a separate invoice was sent to the consignees for packing, at 10c. per gross.
    “Shantz & Sons have now paid to the United States the following amounts in settlements proposed:
    On 5 seizures at Detroit, appraised value. $057.95
    On 14,952 gross, at 10c. packing, 25 per cent. 373.80
    Penal duty and final settlement proposed. 1,095.91
    Total paid.¿.L... 2,727.66
    . “ Vi. A. Gavett,
    “ Sp’l Agent.
    
    “ War. T. Howell,
    “ Special Agent.”
    
    
      “ No. 8.
    “ Custom-House, Detroit, Mich.,
    “ Collector’s Office, August 7,1884.
    Hon. Chas. J. Folger,
    “ Secr’y of the Treasury, Washington, D. G.:
    
    “ Sir : I have the honor to transmit herewith copy of letter this day received from Special Agents Gavett and Howell relative to tlie amended offer of compromise made by Messrs. J. T. Shantz & Sons, of Berlin, Ontario, in the case of importations from their house of vegetable-ivory buttons, and I also inclose the said offer of the Messrs. Shantz & Sons.
    “ The additional sum offered in compromise, sixteen hundred and ninety-ñve and ^ ($1,695.91) dollars was paid into this office by Special Agent Gavett yesterday, the 6th instant, and is held by me as a special deposit, awaiting the instructions of the Department as to its disposition, which instructions I would respectfully ask may be furnished me at as early a day as possible.
    “As Messrs. Shantz & Sons have thus deposited, in compromise of their liabilities arising from fraudulent entries of buttons, two thousand and sixty-nine and ($2,068.81) dollars, as follows, viz:
    July 31, ’84, 25 per coat, on the 10 e. per gross not invoiced in all exclusive of those seized here.. $373.80
    August 6, '84, as per their offer herewith. 1,695.01
    Total. 2,068. 81
    and as this sum is probably more than the Government could realize from the seizure and sale of such of the goods as could be identified, it seems to me that it would be for the best interests of the Government to accept the offers of Messrs. Shantz & Sons and compromise with them, and I therefore so recommend.
    “Deferring to my letter of the 2nd instant, in reference to this matter, I have to ask that no action be taken thereon.
    “ I am, very respectfully, your ob’t servant,
    “ H. O. Ohristianoy,
    “ Sp’l Dep'y ColVr.
    
    “ We join the collector in recommending the acceptance of the above-mentioned offer.
    “Win. A. Gavett,
    “ SpeeH Agent.
    
    “Wm:. T. Howell,
    “ Spec’l Agent.”
    
    “No. 9.
    “ Washing-ton, Oet. 3, 1884.
    To the honorable Sec’y or the Treasury,
    “ Washington, D.
    
    “ Dear Sir : We hereby desire to withdraw our offer of compromise, made, respectively, on July 26, for $657.95; July 30, $373.80; and August 6, $1,695.91, amounting in all to $2,727.66. The amount paid on August 6th, of $1,695.91, we think should not be paid, it being a demand of 20 per cent, penal duty made by Spl. Agent W. T. Howell after we made full settlement, satisfactory to Messrs. W. A. G-avett, spl. agent at Detroit, and W. Livingston, jr., collector at Detroit, and hereby offer in settlement the.sum of $1,031.75, being $657.95 for goods which had been seized in Detroit previous to our knowing that the U. S. tariff- laws had not been complied with, and $373.80 as extra duty on all goods that had been previously shipped in like manner.
    “ J. T. Shantz & Sons.”
    “ No. 10.
    “ Office of the Solicito r of the Treasury,
    “ Washington, D. O., Deo. 2‘Id, 1884.
    “ Sir : I have the honor to return herewith an offer of J. Y. Shantz & Sons to pay $1,031.75 in compromise of a claim against them arising out of the importation from Ontario of certain vegetable-ivory buttons, which offer was referred to me on October 4th last for action, under section 3469, Revised Statutes.
    “ These parties made an offer of a larger sum sometime previously in this case, which they have withdrawn after favorable recommendation by the United States attorney for the eastern district of Michigan, and have substituted the offer now presented for my consideration. This last offer was submitted bo that office on the 28th ultimo for the report, required by the statute. I am now in receipt of his report, declining to recommend a compromise on the terms offered. Accordingly nothing remains for me to do but to inform you of the fact and to recommend the return of the amount on deposit.
    “ Henry S. Neal,
    “ Solicitor of the Treasury.”
    “Hon. Hugh McCulloch,
    “ Secretary of the Treasury.”
    “No. 11.
    “ Treasury Department,
    “Office of the Secretary,
    “ Washington, D. G., December 29,1884,
    ^Collector of Customs,
    “ Detroit, Mich.:
    
    “ Sir : Referring to your letters of the 2d and 7th of August last, concerning the offer of J. Y. Shantz & Sons to compromise certain customs claims by the payment of $2,069.71, which offer was amended by the proponents on the.3d of October last, by reducing the sum to $373.80, you are informed that the Department is in receipt of a communication dated the 22d instant, from the Solicitor of the Treasury, in which he states that the United States attorney in charge of the claims declines to recommend the acceptance of the offer so amended. There is nothing further to be done in this matter, except to return the money deposited by the proponents, which it is understood is held by you as a special deposit, and you will therefore take action accordingly.
    “H, J. French,
    
      uAssistant Secretary.'”
    
    “No. 12.
    “ Treasury Department,
    “ Washington, D. 0., January 19th, 1885.
    “ The assistant treausurer U. S., Chicago, Illinois, pay to the order of J. Y. Shantz & Son, two thousand and sixty nine rifo dollars, on account of amount held to awaitdecision m the case of of J. Y. Shantz & Son, to be charged to special-deposit account No. 5.
    “ $2,069.71.]
    “ H. McCulloch,
    “ Secretary of the Treasury.
    
    “ Countersigned:
    “Henry S. Neal,
    “ Solicitor of the Treasury.”
    
    “ (Across the face:) Cancelled. See letter of acting chief of customs division, May 14. 1885.”
    The money was deposited as stated in the foregoing correspondence. The draft, of which the next above is a copy, was sent to the district attorney, but it does nob appear that the same was ever delivered or tendered to the claimants or that they were notified thereof.
    IY.
    Subsequent action was had, as set out in the following correspondence and documents:
    “No. 13.
    “Oppice op the Solicitor op the Treastry,
    
      “Washington I). G., May 12th, 1885.
    “ Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith the two reports of the United States attorney at Detroit and other papers relative to the offer of J. Y. Shantz & Soils to compromise a claim arising from the illegal entry of vegetable ivory buttons imported from the Province of .Ontario. The report of the-24th ultimo wag obtained in pursuance of the request of your Department letter of the 22d ultimo, that the district attorney be requested to return the check heretofore sent him for delivery to proponents, and to review the whole subject-matter, so that a final determination may be had.
    “With this last report he has returned the check, and therein he says that in view of the conclusion reached by the Department, that ‘if the offer of settlement last made by them is not accepted the sum of deposit will, of course, have to be returned,’ he begs leave to recommend the acceptance of the offer,
    “The first offer made by these proponents was in the sum of $2,069.71, and this was deposited to the credit of the Secretary of the Treasury.
    “The United States attorney, in his report of August 30th, 1884, recommended acceptance, stating that he found on examination that the undervaluation consisted in not including in the invoice the charges of ten cents per gross for packing, and that there was an absence of intent to defraud the Government. While this offer was under consideration Messrs. Shantz & Co. proposed to withdraw the same and to substitute an offer of $1,031.75. Upon submission of this last offer to the United ¡States attorney, that officer declined to recommend it. In stating his reasons therefor he said that had not the previous offer and deposit been made, seizures of goods would have been made at Chicago, Cincinnati, New York, and elsewhere. Also that these goods have since goue upon the market and beyond the control of the customs officers,
    “ On January 22nd last a check for $2,069.71 was issued by your predecessor to the order of proponents and sent by this office to the district attorney for delivery to them. It has remained undelivered in his hands until the 29th ultimo, the proponents having made no demand therefor. On the 20th of February last that officer desired instructions as to further retention of the check, stating that to now refund the money would leave the Government practically without remedy.
    “ It was under these circumstances, connected with the fact that the proponents were inhabitants of Canada, beyond the reach of legal process, that the district attorney was requested to review the case and report.
    “There is no proceeding against the proponents in court; they are not likely to come within the reach of process, nor is it probable that any penalty could be enforced against them, even if judgment should be had. The case arose out of an investigation by a special agent who seized a lot of merchandize in the hands of proponents’ agents in this country. . Certain shipments also to different parts of the country were traced,, which were believed to be tainted with fraud, and it was proposed to make seizures of these. At this juncture the proponents, on an estimate of the amount of duties due on all the importations, offered in settlement $2,069.71, part of which sum was the estimated value of goods already seized. Upon deposit of this money these were released, and the proposed seizure of the other lots were abandoned. Subsequent to this the proponents proposed the withdrawal of a large part of their deposit and the substitution of an offhr for a much less amount. The Government has now no remedy against them, having parted with goods already seized and the remainder having gone into consumption beyond the possibility of seizure. I think, therefore, that the importers should be held to their first offer, $2,069.71.
    “I therefore now express my concurrence in the recommendation of the district attorney, contained in his report of August 30th last, favoring acceptance of that amount, and suggest the cancellation of the check heretofore issued.
    “A. McOue,
    “ Solicitor of the Treasury.
    
    “Hon. D. Manning,
    
      11 Secretary of the Treasury.v
    
    “No. 14.
    “Treasury Department,
    “ Washington, D. G., May 14th, 1885.
    “To the Solicitor op the Treasury : •
    “Sir : The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, in relation to the offer of J. T. Shantz & Sons to compromise a claim arising from alleged illegal entries of certain vegetable ivory buttons imported from Canada in 1883, by the payment of $2,069.71.
    “The sum offered in this case, which was first deposited in the Treasury, was by reason of a modified order of the proponents attempted to be returned to them. The check for the amount, however, was not delivered to the proponents, and you now return it to this office, with two reports from the U. S. attorney at Detroit, who has charge of the case.
    “ The U. S. attorney recommends that no modification of the original terms of compromise be allowed, and that the said sum of $2,069.71 be accepted and covered into the Treasury.
    “You concur in such recommendations, referring to section 3469, R. S. Department, in pursuance of such recommendations, herebv compromise the claim by accepting the said sum of $2,069.71.
    “You will please notify the U. S. attorney at Detroit of such action.
    “ The return checks will be cancelled.
    “ Yery respectfully,
    “D. Manning,
    
      “Secretary?
    
    
      “ No. 15.
    “Treasury Department,
    “ Washington, I). (7., May 16th, 1885.
    “ Tbe Assistant Treasurer U. S., Chicago, Ill., place to credit •of Treasury U. S. two thousand and sixty-nine dollars, on account of W. Livingston, jr., collector of customs, Detroit, Michigan, in the case of J. Y. Shantz & Sons, to be charged to •special-deposit account No. 5.
    “ $2,069.71.]
    “D. Manning-,
    
      “Secretary of the Treasury.
    
    “ Countersigned:
    “A. McCue,
    
      uSolicitor of the Treasury.
    
    “(Endorsement:) Paid, and amount deposited to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States, in the name of W. Livingston, jr., coll’r customs, Detroit, Michigan, as pr. c. d. No. 684, dated May 26th, 1885. T. M. Bradley, Act’g Ass’t Treasurer U. S.”
    It does not appear that any of the actions mentioned in the correspondence and documents set out in this finding took place with the consent of the claimants, or upon notice to them.
    
      Mr. J. C. Fay for the claimants:
    1. The legal basis of this first demand rests upon the right of one from whom money has been exacted by duress of goods to sue and recover it back in an action for money had and received.
    “The rule is, that when money has been obtained by fraud, oppression, or extortion, or when it has been paid to secure a right which the party paying it was entitled to without such payment, and which was withheld until such payment was made, the payment is involuntary, and the money may be recovered back.” (Córlele v. Maxwell, 3 Blatchf., 413 $ Irving v. Wilson, 4 T. It., 485; Wolfe v. Marshal, 52 Mo., 167.)
    This is not a case of illegal exatión of duties, it was not a question as to how much duty could be collected, which might have been paid finder protest and suit instituted to recover back the excess, as was Nichols’s Case (7 Wall.), but the goods were seized as being undervaluéd, seized for alleged frauds. They were not held for the payment of duties, but as forfeited,. and the payment was not a payment of duties, but of their appraised value, under section 3039, R. S.,' to release the seizure.
    2. It is hardly necessary to cite authorities to the point that-an offer may be withdrawn at any time before its acceptance. (Wheat v. Cross, 31 Md., 99; Vassar v. Camp, 11 N. Y., 441; Hamilton v. Ins. Co., 5 Pa. State, 339.)
    
      Mr. Héber J. May (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Howard) for the defendants:
    3. It would be a novel condition of things if, under the law, the rights which have accrued to the respective parties in this transaction, by their voluntary acts, and without duress, can be swept aside as naught. Claimants, by their own acts, are estopped from recovering back this money. The money was paid into the Treasury under the system adopted by Congress for the collection of revenue, and is a matter over which this court has no jurisdiction. (Nichols v. United States, 7 Wall., 129.)
    Under such system of laws the claimants had a remedy against the collector or seizing officer, if the seizure was illegal. (Elmes’s Law of Customs, p. 102. § 265, and note.)
    The claimants, by their voluntary act, prevented the final adjudication upon the subject as to whether the seizure was illegal or not; and the abandonment of their rights in the court were not only voluntary, but lawful, and in accordance with the revenue system, and conclusive.
    2. It has already been shown by a statement of the facts that the sum of $373.80 was offered, and the offer pending, when it was accepted and covered into the Treasury. There was no irregularity as to the acceptance of this part of the offer of compromise.
    3. The offer of $1,695.91 was made 5th August, 1884 (Rec., 14, 15), and withdrawn 3d October, 1884 (Rec., 18). Some correspondence occurred between the officers of the Government of which the claimants were not cognizant. If the court has jurisdiction of these claims, the withdrawal of the offer of compromise as to this item, considered in connection with the subsequent acceptance by the Secretary of the Treasury, presents a question of importance. The Secretary of the Treasury has power to compromise claims generally, except cases of judgments for customs duties. (Bev. Stat., § 3469; Elmes’s Law of Customs, p. 13, § 27 j Synop. Treas. Dec., p. 203, No. 5690.)
   Richardson, Ch. J.,

delivered tbe opinion of the court:

Two distinct claims are presented in this case upon different facts, though growing our of transactions alike in some particulars.

The facts upon which-the first claim is founded are set out in findings 1 and 2.

The claimants, in July, 1884, imported from Canada into the United States, at the port of Detroit, in Michigan, several lots of vegetable buttons, consigned to different parties. The customs officers at Detroit seized the goods, forfeited for the alleged reasons that in the invoices for entry they were fraudulently undervalued, in that the cost of the cartons and packing were not added to the value of the goods, as required, according to the interpretation of the law enforced by the customs officers under rulings of the Treasury Department. (Bev. Stat., 2839.)

The claimants made application for the release of the goods under the following provisions of the Bevised Statutes :

“ Sec. 3081. The collectors of the several districts of the United States, in all cases of seizure of any merchandise for violation of the revenue laws, the appraised value of which, in the district wherein such seizure shall be made, does not exceed. $1,000, are hereby authorized, subject to the approval of the ‘Secretary of the Treasury, to release such merchandise on payment of the appraised value thereof.”

The Secretary of the Treasury approved the application and authorized the release on payment of the appraised value.

The goods were thereupon appraised, the claimants paid $657, and the goods were released to them.

They now seek to recover back the money so paid on the ground that the law did not require the cost of cartons and packing tó be included in the valuation, and so the seizure was illegal, and they paid the money in duress of their goods and for the purpose of releasing them from illegal detention.

In support of the allegation of illegality of seizure upon the grounds stated, they rely wholly upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Oberteuffer v. Robertson (116 U. S. R., 499). A careful examination of that case shows that what the court decided was this, that the cost or value of cartons and packing are not dutiable items, either by themselves or as part of the market value of the goods, unless they be of a material or form designed to evade duties, or are designed for use otherwise than in a bona-fide transportation of the goods to the United States, in which latter cases they are dutiable.

All the circumstances under which the goods involved in the present claim were seized are not before us. They might have been seized in mistake of law as to whether any cartons and packing were to be included in the cost, or in mistake of fact as to whether these particular cartons and packing were of the kind and description required to be so included, or were exempt under the statutes, or there may have been no mistake of either law or fact.

What appears is that when their goods were seized the claimants applied for a release upon the terms prescribed by statute; that the Secretary of the Treasury approved the application; and that the goods were surrendered to them upon payment of the sum determined as provided by law.

This was clearly a voluntary settlement and compromise, with full knowledge of all the facts of the matters at issue between the parties, whatever they were, in accordance with statute provisions on the subject, and is binding alike on the claimants and the defendants. Money so paid can not be recovered back. '

The claimants further urge that they are entitled to refund of the money thus paid, on the ground that the Secretary of the Treasury has authorized its repayment in his circular of February 2, 1886, set out in finding 2. After the decision of the Supreme Court in the Oberteuffer Case, the Secretary, by that circular, instructed collectors of customs that “the rule thus laid down in this decision will be applied to all future importations and liquidated entries, and also to all entries where the requirements of law as to protest, appeal, institution of suits, etc., have been fully complied with.”

The difficulties of the claimants’ case, as founded on this circular, are twofold: First, the exact description of .the claimants? goods do not so appear that we can determine whether or not they come within the rule of exemption laid down in that case. Second, it does not appear that “the requirements of law as to protest, appeal, institution of suit, etc., bavebeen complied with,” and the contrary seems to be apparent from the findings. Nothing is due the claimant by reason of that circular.

As to the second claim, the facts are found in the numerous documents set out in findings 3 and 4. Concisely stated, 'they are these: Previously to the importation of the goods seized in 1884, as before stated, the claimants had imported several invoices of libe goods valued by them in their invoices in the same manner.

Fearing that they might, have more trouble and be subjected to fines and penalties on account of the former importations, they voluntarily proposed to the Secretary of the Treasury, on the 29th of July, 1884, to pay the additional duty which would accrue from the cartons and packings if added to the valuation, stating such additional dutyjit $373.80. (Finding 3, letter No. 1.) -

The Secretary directed that the claimants be informed that before considering this offer it would' be necessary for them to. deposit the sum offered. The money was thereupon deposited with the collector and turned over to the assistant treasurer, and an investigation was made about July 31, 1884. (Finding 3, letters Nos. 3, 4, 5.)

July 5, 1884, before any further action had been taken on that offer, the claimants wrote a letter to the Secretary, adding $1,695.61 to their former Offer. At the same time they deposited that additional sum with the collector and it was turned over to the assistant treasurer. (Finding 3, letters 6, 7, 8.)

October 3, 1874, before the acceptance of these offers, they again wrote to the Secretary, withdrawing the propositions-previously made, and offering the sum of $1,031.75 in lieu thereof. (Finding 3, letter No. 9.)

December 29, 18.84, the Secretary of the Treasury declined this offer, and ordered the money deposited to be returned to the claimants. (Finding 3, letters 10, 11.)

January 19, 1885, a draft for the amount of both deposits, $2,069.71, upon the assistant treasurer at Chicago, payable to the order of the claimants, was made, duly signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and transmitted to the district attorney to be delivered to them. (Finding 4, No. 12.) It was never so delivered, and it does not appear that they were notified as to what had been done.

Subsequently, in May, 1885, the Secretary of the Treasury, who was the successor of the Secretary by whom the offers had been rejected, considered the matter anew.

May 14, 1885, after receiving a report of the facts from the Solicitor of the Treasury, and after the district attorney had returned the draft, the Secretary addressed a letter to the Solicitor, compromising the claim “ by accepting the said sum of $2,009.71,” and about the same time caused the money to be drawn from the assistant treasurer and covered into the United States Treasury. (Finding 4, Nos. 13, 14,15.) The original draft was thereupon canceled. (Finding 3, No. 12.)

The claimants, upon these facts, sue for the money deposited by them upon the ground that the offer accepted had been withdrawn before acceptance, and that a different offer had been made, which had never been accepted.

It is familiar law, so well settled that it is hardly necessary to cite any of the numerous authorities, that to make a valid - contract the minds of both parties must meet on the same points, and that in any negotiation an offer on the one side must be accepted on the other, if at all, upon the very terms proposed, and that any departure therefrom is no acceptance. (Tilley v. County of Cook, 103 U. S. R., 161.) Furthermore, the offer may be withdrawn at any time- before acceptance, and when withdrawn the negotiation is at an end.

In the case of Minneapolis and Saint Louis Railway v. Columbus Rolling Mill (119 U. S. R., 149) the defendant offered to sell the plaintiff 2,000 to 5,000 tons of iron rails, at $54 a ton, the offer to be accepted prior to December 20. On December 16 the plaintiff accepted for 1,200 tons only. December 16 defendant declined this acceptance. December 19 plaintiff telegraphed acceptance of 2,000 tons, and asked for a reply. No reply was .made to that telegram nor to several others of a subsequent date making inquiries about it.

The court held that the offer to sell was rejected by plaintiff’s offer, in reply, to purchase a different quantity, and that upon the defendant’s declining that offer the negotiation was closed, and the plaintiff could not afterwards fall back on the defendant’s original offer and make a valid acceptance even before the time therein specified had expired.

In the present case, as in that, the minds of the parties never met.

July 29,1884, the claimants oflered, as a compromise, $373.80. .July 5 they offered $1,695.61 additional. October 3,1884, they withdrew their former proposals, an<^ offered $1,031.75. May 14,1885, the Secretary undertook to accept $2,065.71. So the. parties never agreed, and the negotiation at an end.

The claimant is entitled to recover the sum of $2,065.71, and judgment will be so entered.  