Opinion of the Court. The learned counsel for the defendant in error argue with great force and ingenuity that the rule is firmly established as the law of Pennsylvania, that after a survey has been returned into the land office for the period of twenty-one years unchallenged by any adverse claimants in the mode required by law, it is a conclusive presumption that the survey was actually made and marked upon the ground as shown by the official return. After a careful examination of the decisions of the Supreme Court cited by counsel, and some others relating to the subject, we are convinced that they are all in harmony with the conclusions herein announced. After the lapse of twenty-one years from the return of a survey the presumption is that the warrant was located as returned by the surveyor to the land office; and in the absence of rebutting facts the official courses and distances determine the location of the tract warranted. But this presumption is not conclusive, and is rebutted by proof of the existence of marked lines and monuments, and other facts tending to show that the actual location on the ground was different from the official courses and distances. Where younger surveys of fixed lines called for the older the fact is admissible, in the language of the authorities, "to aid the jury in discovering the actual location of the survey." There are other assignments of error by the counsel for plaintiff in error; but inasmuch as they involve somewhat the principles of the points already passed upon, we do not deem it necessary to consider them farther. The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the case remanded, with directions to grant a new trial. Opinion of the Court. HARTRANFT v. SHEPPARD. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 191. Argued and submitted February 17, 1888.- Decided April 2, 1888. Quilts composed of cotton and eider-down, or silk and eider-down, eiderdown being in each case the component material of chief value, are subject to a duty, on importation into the United States, of twenty per cent ad valorem as manufactured articles not enumerated. THE case is stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff in error. Mr. F. D. Pritchard, for defendants in error, submitted on the printed record. The following opinion, prepared by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, was delivered by the court as its opinion. The single question in this case is, whether quilts composed of cotton and eider-down, or silk and eider-down, the eiderdown in each case being the component material of chief value, are dutiable, on importation into the United States, as manufactures of cotton or of silk, not enumerated, at thirtyfive per centum ad valorem if of cotton, and at fifty per centum ad valorem if of silk, or at twenty per centum ad valorem as manufactured articles not enumerated, the latter being the amount admitted to be due by the importer in his protest. The collector demanded the highest rates, which were paid, and this suit was brought to recover back the difference between these amounts and a duty of twenty per cent. The case depends upon the effect to be given the following provisions of the act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, 22 Stat. 488 [amending the Revised Statutes]: "Cotton cords, braids, gimps, galloons, webbing, goring, suspenders, braces, and all manufactures of cotton, not specially enumerated or provided VOL. CXXV-22 Opinion of the Court. for in this act, and corsets, of whatever material composed, thirty-five per centum ad valorem." Ib. § 2502, Schedule I, p. 506. The quilts made of cotton and eider-down were assessed under that provision. "All goods, wares, and merchandise, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, made of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, fifty per centum ad valorem." Schedule L, Ib. 510. Those of silk and eiderdown were assessed under that provision. "There shall be levied, collected, and paid, on the importation of all raw or unmanufactured articles, not herein enumerated or provided for, a duty of ten per centum ad valorem ; and all articles manufactured, in whole or in part, not herein enumerated or provided for, a duty of twenty per centum ad valorem." Ib. § 2513, p. 523. The claim of the importer was that the articles should be assessed at twenty per centum under that section. By § 2499, Ib. 491, it was provided as follows: "And on all articles manufactured from two or more materials the duty shall be assessed at the highest rates at which the component material of chief value may be chargeable. If two or more rates of duty should be applicable to any imported article, it shall be classified for duty under the highest of such rates: Provided, That non-enumerated articles similar in material and quality and texture, and the use to which they may be applied, to articles on the free list, and in the manufacture of which no dutiable materials are used, shall be free." Quilts are non-enumerated manufactured articles, composed of two or more materials. Eider-down is on the free list. Ib. § 2503, p. 518. As eider-down is the component material of chief value in the quilts involved in this suit, and that is free, it follows that they are manufactured articles not provided for, and therefore chargeable with the duty of twenty per centum ad valorem under § 2513, rather than thirty-five per centum as a manufacture of cotton, or fifty per centum as a manufacture of which silk is the component material of chief value. As such was the opinion of the court below, its judgment to that effect is Affirmed. Opinion of the Court. MISSOURI, ex rel. WALKER v. WALKER. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. No. 910. Submitted February 15, 1888. - Decided April 2, 1888. A contract, made under authority of a statute, by a State with an individual to prosecute at his own expense before Congress and the Departments certain specified claims of the State against the United States, and to receive as full compensation for his services a certain rate of commission on the amounts collected by him, does not confer upon the agent a power, coupled with an interest in the subject of the contract, which makes the contract of agency irrevocable. Hall v. Wisconsin, 103 U. S. 5, and Jeffries v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 110 U. S. 305, distinguished. THIS was an application to a state court of Missouri for a mandamus, which was refused. The relator sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. William M. Williams for plaintiff in error. Mr. B. G. Boone, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, for defendant in error. The following opinion, prepared by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, was delivered by the court as its opinion. On the 19th of March, 1881, a statute was enacted by the General Assembly of Missouri, authorizing and empowering the Fund Commissioners of the State, if they deemed it expedient, to employ a competent agent to prosecute to final settlement before Congress and the proper departments at Washington certain specified claims of the State against the government of the United States. The agent thus appointed was to give security for the faithful performance of his duties. He was to prosecute the claims at his own expense, and receive, as full compensation for his services, such commissions on the amount collected by him as might be agreed upon between himself and the fund commissioners, not exceeding Opinion of the Court. five per cent on claims for money that had already been paid out by the State, and fifteen per cent on the others. The officers of the United States were authorized to pay the agent his agreed commissions; but all other payments by the United States must be made to the treasurer of the State. Section 3 of this act is as follows: "Sec. 3. With a view to the prompt and satisfactory settlement of the claims of this State against the government of the United States, and referred to in this act, the adjutant general, state auditor, and other officers of the State having in their possession any papers, accounts, payrolls, orders, receipts, vouchers, or other evidences of indebtedness necessary to the establishment of said claims, shall, upon the written order of the governor, deliver to such agent all such papers, documents, pay-rolls, receipts, vouchers, or other evidences of indebtedness, (or authenticated copies of the same, where such copies will answer,) and take his receipt for the same; and in all cases wherein it is held by the government of the United States to be necessary to the establishment of said claims, that such original papers, pay-rolls, vouchers, receipts, or orders, etc., should be filed in the departments at Washington, it shall be the duty of the agent, and he is hereby authorized, to deliver the same to the proper authorities to be so filed, but before delivering the said original papers he shall withdraw from file all authenticated copies of the same heretofore filed by this State, or the agents thereof; and in all cases wherein copies shall not have been made of such original papers, etc., as it may be necessary to file as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of said agent to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and properly authenticate, copies of the same, which copies so made, together with those heretofore made and by him withdrawn from file, as hereinabove provided for, shall be returned by such agent to the proper state officers of this State, and the fact of the return of such copies shall be by said officers respectively, certified to the governor of this State." On the 28th of November, 1884, the fund commissioners, acting under the authority of this statute, employed John R. Walker as the agent of the State in that behalf, and agreed |