Original petition for mandamus by the United States of America, on relation of the Tongue & Yellowstone River Irrigation District and others, against the United States District Court for the District of Montana and Hon. George Ml Bourquin.

The relators filed a petition in this court for a writ of mandamus to the Judge of the District Court of Montana, with directions to correct the entry of a judgment made upon the mandate of this court, so as to comply with said mandate as sent down in the case of Tongue & Yellowstone River Irr. Dist. v. Jordan, 208 Fed. 261. The case which we there heard on appeal was a suit brought in 1918 for the rescission of a contract entered into November 4, 1914, by which Jordan, the plaintiff, agreed to sell to the irrigation district a certain dam, dam site, canal, irrigation system, and right of way, together with water rights, for the sum of $195,000, payable in cash, or, at the option of the district, in its bonds in that amount. The contract was to be performed on or before February 25, 1915. On the hearing of the cause in the District Court, the plaintiff waived his right to rescind, and consented to specific performance. It was accordingly decreed that the contract whereby the plaintiff sold to the district the irrigation plant and water right for the sum. of $195,000, “to be paid in the 30-year coupon bonds of said irrigation district, with annual interest at 6 per cent, per annum, be specifically performed by tbe parties, but in tlie modified terms hereinafter set forth.” It was further decreed that the plaintiff be released from making further alterations or Repairs upon the plant, and that in lieu thei’eof the district retain out of the amount owing on the purchase price the sum of $25,000; that in payment for the plant the district should deliver its bonds aggregating $195,000, with the original coupons providing for interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum attached, but that before delivery the district might detach therefrom or indorse the coupons attached to said bonds as follows:' “(a) Indorse said coupons so as to show that no interest accrued on said bonds to June 30, 1915, the date of their approval by the District Court, (b) Said irrigation district may detach from said bonds a sufficient number of the first maturing coupons thereon to equal the sum of $25,000, the sum allowed for the completion of the repairs and improvements upon said plant as above approved, (e) Said irrigation district may detach from said coupons nest maturing on said bonds the sum of $14,626.71, being, the net sum received by plaintiff from the landowners of said district for the use of said irrigation plant since June 30, 1915. * * * If the exact amounts of the credit herein specified cannot be made up in coupons to be so detached, the next lesser amount in such coupons shall be taken, and a proper indorsement of payment as of that date made on a sufficient number of the next maturing coupons to make up said entire credits. The remaining past-due coupons, if any, upon said bonds, shall be an immediate obligation of said district to plaintiff.”

On appeal to this court the decree was affirmed, this court saying: “We are of the opinion that the court below was right in providing by its decree for the detaching from the bonds required to be delivered in payment for the property a sufficient number of the coupons thereof first maturing to equal the sum of $25,000, for the completion of the repairs and improvement of the plant referred to, and to cover the net sum so received by the seller of the property for the use of the water by the landowners subsequent to June 30, 1915.” The petition for mandamus alleges that on June 2,1920, after the mandate of this court was filed in the court below, the relators deposited with the clerk of that court 195 bonds of the district, of the face value of $1,000 each, with certain coupons attached, of the value of $60 each, and served upon the attorneys for Jordan notice of their compliance with the decree, and thereafter moved the court to approve their action as a compliance with the decree, but that on July 28, 1920, the court ordered that the relators be permitted to detach from the bonds deposited by them only such number of interest coupons as with interest added from the maturity of said coupons would equal the amounts awarded to the relators by said decree, and that thereafter, upon their motion for a rehearing, the court declined to modify the order so made. The relators prayed that a writ of mandamus issue to the Judge of said District Court directing that the order of July 28, 1920, be modified in so far as the same requires that the relators detach only such number of the interest coupons attached to the $195,000 worth of the bonds of said district as; with interest added from the dates of the maturity of said coupons, would equal the amounts awarded to the relators by said decree, to wit, $25,000, and N$14,626.71, and to order said District Court to permit rela-tors to comply with said decree by detaching from said bonds a sufficient number of said coupons to equal at their face value the said amounts.

An order to show cause why said petition should not be granted was issued to the Judge of the District Court, and he made return thereon, setting forth that the question whether or not the coupons representing the annual interest on said bonds should bear interest after their respective maturities was not before that court at the trial of said action, nor before this court on the appeal, and that said question came before the respondent as an original one, and as an original question was decided by him, in the order made on July 28, 1920.