Opinion of the Court. In the case of the Michigan Southern and Northern Indiana Company, the evidence is not as satisfactory as in that of the Illinois Central. The shop books in which the accounts for repairing rails were kept, if kept at all, were not produced, and had probably been destroyed as of no value before the accounting took place. In their absence it is difficult to determine with accuracy what the facts were, but upon full consideration we are satisfied the Circuit Court did not in its decree under-estimate the amount of deduction to be made in favor of this company. In making up the decree interest was added from the date of the master's report on the balances found due after the ascertained deductions had been made, and this is assigned for error. As a general rule a patentee is not entitled to interest on profits made by an infringer. The reason is that profits are regarded in the light of unliquidated damages. Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96, but in many of the cases it is said that circnmstances may arise in which it would be proper to add interest. Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205. Here, as has been seen, in effect, the original decrees rendered in July, 1874, were affirmed in 1876, to the extent of the present recoveries. The cases were only sent back to ascertain how much should be deducted from those decrees for errors in the accounts as then stated. If the decrees had been entered originally for the present amounts, the patentee would have been entitled to interest from 1874. That was settled in Railroad Company v. Turrill, 101 U. S. 836, which was one of the cases affirmed in whole at the former hearing in this court. Under these circumstances, it seems to us not at all inequitable to allow interest on the corrected amounts from the date of the master's report in 1879. The cases are entirely different in this particular from what they would have been if the original decrees had been reversed for error in the principles of the accounting. Those decrees may very properly be considered as affirmed in part and reversed in part, the new reference being had only to find out the exact extent of the reversals. Since the present appeals were taken the patentec has died, and the appellants now suggest that the causes of action do not survive, and the suits cannot be further prosecuted in the name Opinion of the Court. of the legal representatives of the decedent. As to this, it is sufficient to say that what was called by Chief Justice Marshall, in Gordon v. Ogden, 3 Pet. 33, "the silent practice of the court" has always been the other way. It is every-day practice to revive such suits, and the books are full of cases in which this has been silently done, no one apparently entertaining a doubt of its propriety. The decree in each of the cases is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD did not sit in these cases and took no part in their decision. WABASH, ST. LOUIS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. KNOX. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Submitted January 14th, 1884.-Decided January 28th, 1884. When the amount in dispute in this court is less than $5,000 the court cannot take jurisdiction. Motion to dismiss. Mr. V. Warner for the motion and for defendant in error. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. The judgment in this case was for $5,237.15, but the record shows in many ways that of this amount $727.42 was admitted to be due. A formal tender of that sum was made on the 26th of February, 1883, and the money deposited in court for Knox, the plaintiff, where it remained until the 14th of March, nine days after the judgment was rendered, when it was withdrawn by the railroad company, without prejudice, on the order of the court and with the consent and agreement of Knox. The bill of exceptions also shows an admitted liability of the company for the amount of the tender. The case is, therefore, in all material respects, like that of Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6, where the writ was dismissed, although the judg Syllabus. ment was for $8,233.59, because, by an agreeed statement of facts in the record, it appeared that the defendant admitted he owed $5,099.59 of the amount recovered. To the same effect is Jenness v. Citizens' National Bank of Rome, ante, 52. The amount in dispute here is no more than was in dispute below, and that was less than $5,000. The motion to dismiss is granted. JEFFRIES, Administrator, v. MUTUAL LIFE INSUR- IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. Argued and submitted January 16th, 1884.-Decided February 4th, 1884. Error-Contract-Copartnership. K. died in Missouri, in 1871, having a policy of insurance on his life. J. was appointed there his administrator. L. and T., copartners as attorneys at law, brought a suit on the policy, in which, after a long litigation, there was a judgment for the plaintiff for $13,495, in 1877, in a Circuit Court of the United States. J. had died in 1873, and C. had been appointed administrator in his place, and substituted as plaintiff. The case was brought into this court, by the defendant, by a writ of error. Before it was heard here L. compromised the judgment with the defendant, in 1879, receiving in full $9,401.42, and entered satisfaction of the judgment on the record. C. then moved the Circuit Court to vacate the satisfaction, on the grounds that L. had no authority to enter it, and had been notified by C., after the compromise had been made and before the satisfaction had been entered, that he would not ratify the compromise, and that the compromise was unlawful because not authorized by the Probate Court. The Circuit Court heard the motion on affidavits, and found as a fact, that J. while administrator, entered into a contract with L. and T., whereby they agreed to prosecute the claim for a portion of the proceeds, with full power to compromise it as they should please, and that the claim was a doubtful one, and held that the compromise was rightly made, and that the plaintiff was bound by the contract of J. and denied the motion. On a writ of error by the plaintiff: Held, 1. This court cannot review such finding of fact, there being evidence on both sides, and the error, if any, not being an error of law; 2. The contract made was not champertous or unlawful, and J. had' authority to make it; 3. The contract having given to L. and T. a power VOL. CX-20 Opinion of the Court. coupled with an interest, the death of J. did not impair the authority to compromise, and C. was bound by it; 4. L. having continued to be a copartner with T. so far as this case was concerned, had authority to make the compromise without the co-operation or consent of T. Mr. T. W. B. Crews (Mr. John W. Booth was with him), argued for appellant. Mr. S. T. Glover and Mr, John R. Shepley for appellee, submitted on their brief. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. On the 19th of August, 1871, one Allan A. Kennedy died in Franklin County, Missouri, having two policies of insurance on his life, one in the Economical Life Insurance Company, of Providence, R. I., for $5,000, and the other in the Mutual Life Insurance Company, of New York, the defendant in error, for $10,000. Charles W. Jeffries was appointed administrator of Kennedy, by the Probate Court of Franklin County. At that time Joseph S. Laurie and Thomas W. B. Crews were attorneys at law, and copartners as such, in St. Louis, Missouri. The policies were put into their hands for suit, and they brought a suit on each in the name of Jeffries, as plaintiff, in a State court of Missouri. The suits were both of them removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. In each suit an answer was put in setting up a breach of warranty by the assured, in that, in the application for the insurance, he stated that he was a single man when he was a married man. In the suit against the Economical Company there was a demurrer to the answer, on the ground that the answer failed to allege that the misstatement was material to the risk. The demurrer was overruled by the Circuit Court and a judgment was entered for the defendant. On a writ of error, this court affirmed the judgment, at October term, 1874, 22 Wall. 47. In the suit against the defendant in error, which is the suit now before us, there was a reply to the answer, alleging that, under the policy, the misstatement was not a breach of warranty, and that the statement was the representation of the agent of the company, and not that of the as Opinion of the Court. sured. In January, 1873, Charles W. Jeffries died, and the plaintiff in error, Cuthbert S. Jeffries, was appointed in his place administrator of Kennedy, and was substituted as plaintiff in this suit in March, 1873. In November, 1873, while the suit against the Economical Company was pending in this court, this suit was tried in the Circuit Court before the court without a jury. That court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant brought the case to this court by a writ of error, and at October term, 1875, the judgment was reversed on the authority of the case in 22 Wall., and a new trial was awarded. In April, 1877, the case was again tried, and before a jury, which found a verdict for the plaintiff, but the Circuit Court set it aside. The case was tried again before a jury, in October, 1877, and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, on which a judgment in his favor was entered, October 9th, 1877, for $13,495. On the 27th of October, 1877, the defendant sued out a writ of error returnable to this court at October term, 1878. The case was docketed here, and the appearance of Joseph S. Laurie was entered for the defendant in error, the present plaintiff in error, and that of O. H. Palmer for the plaintiff in error, the present defendant in error. In February, 1879, Mr. Laurie compromised the judgment with the Mutual Company. Interest at 6 per cent. was computed on the judgment from its entry to November 22d, 1878, and added, and an abatement of $5,000 was then made, and the remainder, $9,401.42, was paid by the company to Mr. Laurie. He surrendered the policy to the company, a stipulation signed by Mr. Laurie and by Mr. Palmer, agreeing that the suit might be dismissed from the docket of this court without costs to either party as against the other, was presented to this court and filed, and, on the 11th of March, 1879, an order was made by this court dismissing the writ of error, each party to pay his own costs. On the 15th of December, 1879, Mr. Laurie, as attorney for the plaintiff, entered satisfaction of the judgment on the margin of the record of the judgment, in the law record book in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court, in the presence of the deputy clerk, who signed the entry as a witness, the entry being as follows: "I hereby enter satisfac |