Dillon

In point of fact and legal status the two cases are substantially identical, and for the sake of brevity we shall therefore refer only to the first.

On August 5,1924, the appellant filed his complaint under the Sealing Claims Act of June 7, 1924, 43 Stat. 595 (28 USCA § 52). Whitelaw v. United States (D. C.) 9 F.(2d) 103 ; United States v. Laflin (C. C. A.) 24 F. (2d) 683; Bird v. United States (C. C. A.) 24 F.(2d) 933 . The customary deposit was made for costs, and summons issued. The clerk’s records disclose no other proceeding until January 11, 1926, when, acting under its standing rule 76, the court entered an order of dismissal, whereupon the clerk, as is his practice,- computed costs earned, and returned the balance of the deposit to counsel for plaintiff. Nothing further occurred until May 6, 1928, when plaintiff filed an' application, supported by an affidavit and accompanied with the written consent of the United States district attorney, that the order of dismissal be vacated. Upon a hear *247 ing the application was denied, and plaintiff brought this appeal.

In addition to the facts already referred to, the affidavit supporting the application shows: That upon the…