
    Hoyt against Gelston.
    wnere ai s ajuagment of the court of errors, affirming a judgment of this court, is affirmed by the supreme court of the United Statest on a writ of error from that court, interest on tile judgment is allowed only to the time of rendering the last judgmentof affirmance.
    THIS cause, (see vol. 13. p. 561—590.) having been carried by writ of error to the supreme court of the United States, was there affirmed, with damages and costs. The judgment of affirmance was rendered on the 27th of February last, and the mandate of the supreme court of the United States to this court was presented and filed the first day of the term. The court above awarded the interest at the rate of six per cent.; and a question now arose, on the taxation of costs, whether the interest was to be computed to the first day of this term, or only to the 27th of February, when the judgment of affirmance was given, there being no direction, in the mandate of the supreme court of the United States, as to the time to which the interest was to be computed.
    Hoffman, T. A. Emmet, and C. Graham, for the plaintiff.
    
      Baldwin, contra.
   Per Curiam.

This court cannot pronounce any new judgment in this case. It can only carry into effect the judgment of the supreme court of the United States. In the computation of interest, therefore, the taxing officer must not go beyond the time of the judgment of affirmance, that being the last act of the court above. The practice, in this respect, in our state courts, is regulated by statute, which cannot apply.to this case.  