George Shiras, Jr.

“ As the claimants themselves appealed from the first judgment of the court of claims, and did not appeal from the second judgment, it is plain that they are not within the express terms of the statute they rely on. ”

“ Ct. 374, where it was held that the receipt by a claimant against the United States for a sum less than he had claimed, paid him by the disbursing agent of a department, 'in full for the above account,' is, in the absence of allegation and proof that it was given in ignorance of its purport, or in circumstances constituting duress, an acquittance in bar of any further demand; citing Baker v. Nactrieb, 19 How. 126, and U.S. v. Childs, 12 Wall. 232.
The judgment of the court below, dismissing the plaintiff's petition, is affirmed. ”

“ Ct. 849, this court held that, when a person from whom an internal revenue tax had been illegally exacted accepted from the government the precise amount of the sum thus illegally exacted, he thereby gave up his right to sue for interest, as incidental damages ”