
    SPALDING v. MANASSE. SAME v. SAME. SAME v. VANACKER. SAME v. SAME. SAME v. YANADA. SAME v. FARWELL. SAME v. COHN.
    EEROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.
    Nos. 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 284, 285.
    Argued April 25,1889. —
    Decided May 13, 1889.
    No error can he examined in the rulings of the court at the trial of a cause by the court without a jury by agreement of parties, if there is no alle- • gation in the record that the stipulation was in writing, as required by the statute. Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, and Dundee Mortgage Co. v. Hughes, 124 U. S. 157, followed.
    These were suits against a collector of customs to recover back duties paid under protest. Judgment in each case for plaintiff, to which defendant sued out a writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorn*y General Maury for plaintiff in error in each case.
    
      Mr. Percy L. Shmnorn for defendants in error.
   Me. Chief Justice Eullee

delivered the opinion of the court.

All of these cases were tried by the court without a. jury, by agreement of the parties, as alleged in the record; but therq is no allegation that the stipulation was in writing, as required by the statute; and, under the ruling in Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, and Dundee Mortgage Company v. Hughes, 124 U. S. 157, no error can be examined in the rulings of the court at the trial. Ve can only inquire whether the declarations were respectively sufficient to sustain the judgments. As there appears to be no érror in this regard, the judgments are severally

Affirmed..  