Opinion of the Court. it was dissolved, but to nothing more. They would certainly not be liable for any aggravated interest on the debt, nor for the debt itself, unless it was lost by the delay, nor for the fees paid to the counsel for conducting the suit." The Chief Justice also referred to the fact that no recovery had been had against the parties-nothing but a seizure and sale of the mortgaged premises-and a dissolution of the injunction; and, therefore, as the court construed the bond, the contingency on which the obligors agreed to pay had not happened, and the condition of the bond was not broken. Under the construction given to the bond in that case, the court could not well do otherwise than reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court. But, according to our view, the bonds sued on in the cases before us do not demand any such construction. It is plain that they could not be intended as security for any debt or demand in litigation, but as security only for the damages that might be sustained by the issuing of the injunctions. The condition is to pay "all such damages as he [Isaacs, in the one case, and Block, in the other] may recover against us in case it should be decided that the said writ of injunction was wrongfully issued." Recover, how? By the law of Louisiana damages may be recovered for suing out an injunction without. just cause, independently of a bond. 3 La. 291. But this cannot be done in the United States courts. Without a bond no damages can be recovered at all. Without a bond for the payment of damages or other obligation of like effect, a party against whom an injunction wrongfully issues can recover nothing but costs, unless he can make out a case of malicious prosecution. It is only by reason of the bond, and upon the bond, that he can recover anything. When, therefore, the condition of the bond in these cases declares that the obligors will pay such damages as the obligee may recover against them, it must mean that they will pay such damages as he may recover by a suit on the bond itself. Otherwise it is senseless and vain. Construed in this way, it is in strict conformity with the order which required it. It is in this way that the bonds in question were finally construed by the Opinion of the Court. Supreme Court of Louisiana, and we think that its construction was right. In its opinion in the Block case the court says: Under our construction we find no difference in the obligation of parties to save David Block harmless from the effects of an injunction issued against him,' and the obligation contracted in this bond, 'to pay to David Block, the defendant in said injunction, all such damages as he may recover against the obligors in case it should be decided that the said writ of injunction was wrongfully issued.' We, therefore, hold that the bond in this case did comply with the condition prescribed in the judge's order, and that it was a valid bond." The court not only construed the bonds in this way, but decided the cases upon this view as to their meaning and effect, awarding to the plaintiffs respectively only such damages as arose from the effects of the respective injunctions. The actions were brought to recover such damages. The petition in each case set forth the facts, showing the injuries which the plaintiff sustained as the immediate result of the injunction, and based his claim to a recovery entirely on the damages arising from such injuries. The evidence was directed to the establishment of these facts, and conformed to the allegations of the petition. The court, in its opinion in the case of David Block, after showing that the bond must be construed as intended to cover these damages, says: "After a careful examination and consideration of the evidence in the record, we are satisfied that plaintiff suffered damages to the full extent of the amount allowed him by the lower court. The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed." In the case of Isaacs, the court at first reversed the judgment of the inferior tribunal, conceding that the order of the District Court required security for the entire damages, past as well as future, but considering the bond as not framed in conformity with it, and as not covering any damages but such as arose after it was given, as to which there was no distinct evidence. Supposing, however, that damages might be recovered against the plaintiffs in the injunction independently of the bond, the court reserved to Isaacs the right to bring a suit for that purpose. But on a rehearing of the case, and after the argument and Opinion of the Court. decision in the Block case, the court came to a different conclusion, and held that the bond was in substantial conformity with the order, and was to be construed as intended to save the parties harmless from the effects of the injunction, adopting in all things the views expressed in the opinion in the Block case. It then adds: "This leaves open for consideration the question of the quantum of damages allowed by the judgment appealed from. We have gone over the evidence on this point with care and deliberation, and reviewed all the authorities cited bearing on this point, the same in both cases, and are satisfied that the amount awarded by the judgment is fully justified and sustained by the proof and the law." The court thereupon set aside its former judgment and affirmed that of the inferior court. The fourth assignment of error is that the court erred in holding that the bond, construed with the order requiring it, bound the obligors for damages sustained before it was given. The solution of the question raised by this assignment depends upon the fair construction of the order, and of the bond given in pursuance of it, and read (as it should be read) in the light of it. The order was "that the injunction be maintained on the complaining creditors giving bond and security to save the parties harmless from the effects of said injunction." The last words clearly mean all the effects of the injunction. The condition of the bond was, to pay "all such damages as he [the obligee] may recover against us in case it should be decided that the said writ of injunction was wrongfully issued." It seems plain to us that all the damages arising from the wrongful issue of the injunctions were intended to be covered by the bond as well as by the order; in other words, that the bond was intended and understood as a compliance with the requirements of the order. That is the natural and obvious meaning of its language when the two are read together; and the parties signing the bend must be presumed to have been cognizant of the order under which it was given. It is unnecessary to review the authorities on this subject. It is undoubtedly true, that a surety cannot be held beyond Statement of Facts. the terms or legal effect of his engagement; and when that has respect to the conduct or fidelity of the principal, or to any other matter usually contemplated as arising in the future, it is to be interpreted prospectively, and not retrospectively. But if, from the nature of the case, the subject of guaranty is a past transaction in whole or in part, and the language of the engagement, taken in its natural sense or legal effect, is broad enough to cover it, such language may properly be construed to do so. As to the power of a court of equity to impose any terms in its discretion as a condition of granting or continuing an injunction, there can be no question. This subject is considered in the case of Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433. We see no error in the judgments of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in these cases, and they are affirmed, with costs. Affirmed. UNITED STATES v. RAMSAY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Submitted December 20, 1886. Decided January 17, 1887. On the 29th April, 1871, A gave notice to a collector of internal revenue of frauds upon the revenue by a railroad company, whereby it had become liable to penalties. In consequence of this information an action was commenced for the recovery of the penalties, which resulted in a compromise in June, 1874, and the payment of a sum by the company in discharge of its liability. A applied for the informer's share of this sum under the provisions of § 179, act of June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 305, as amended by the act of July 13, 1866, 14 Stat. 145. It was conceded that A was the informer as claimed, and that he was entitled to the amount claimed, if the duty and power to make the payment were not taken away by § 39 of the act of June 6, 1872, 17 Stat. 256. repealing those previous provisions. Payment was refused at the treasury, whereupon claimant brought suit in the Court of Claims, and obtained judgment for the recovery of his claim. On appeal this court affirms that judgment by a divided court. SECTION 179 of the act of June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 305, as amended by the act of July 13, 1866, 14 Stat. 145, was as Statement of Facts. follows: "That, where it is not otherwise provided for, it shall be the duty of the collectors, in their respective districts, and they are hereby authorized, to prosecute for the recovery of any sum or sums that may be forfeited; and all fines, penalties, and forfeitures which may be imposed or incurred shall and may be sued for and recovered, where not otherwise provided, in the name of the United States, in any proper form of action, or by any appropriate form of proceeding, before any circuit or district court of the United States for the district within which said fine, penalty, or forfeiture may have been incurred, or before any court of competent jurisdiction. And where not otherwise provided for, such share as the Secretary of the Treasury shall, by general regulations, provide, not exceeding one moiety, nor more than five thousand dollars in any one case, shall be to the use of the person, to be ascertained by the court which shall have imposed or decreed any such fine, penalty, or forfeiture, who shall first inform of the cause, matter, or thing whereby such fine, penalty, or forfeiture shall have been incurred; and when any sum is paid without suit, or before judgment, in lieu of fine, [penalty,] or forfeiture, and a share of the same is claimed by any person as informer, the Secretary of the Treasury, under general regulations to be by him prescribed, shall determine whether any claimant is entitled to such share as above. limited, and to whom the same shall be paid, and shall make payment accordingly. It is hereby declared to be the true intent and meaning of the present and all previous provisions of internal revenue acts granting shares to informers, that no right accrues to or is vested in any informer in any case until the fine, penalty, or forfeiture in such case is fixed by judg ment or compromise, and the amount or proceeds shall have been paid, when the informer shall become entitled to his legal share of the sum adjudged or agreed upon and received: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit or affect the power of remitting the whole or any portion of a fine, penalty, or forfeiture conferred on the Secretary of the Treasury by existing laws." The Secretary of the Treasury, after the passage of the |