Opinion of the Court. made by the purchasers, as well for his principal as for himself; and if he, instead of making the sale for the benefit of both, sold plaintiffs' part for $200,000 and his own for $300,000, he is not authorized to retain the excess to himself, but that he is, in equity and good conscience, bound to share the same with his principals, unless he made a full disclosure to them of all the facts material for them to know, and they, with such full knowledge and for reasons which they deemed sufficient, consented to the unequal division of the purchase money which the defendant made of it. If he did not so disclose the material facts in regard to the value or the amount received, and obtain plaintiffs' consent that he might retain three-fifths of the purchase money, as it is admitted he did, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the one-half of such excess, so received and retained by defendant, as per my former instructions." The jury again retired, and, after further deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for $57,944.82, for which sum, with costs to be taxed, the court rendered judgment against the defendant. To reverse that judgment this writ of error is brought. The defendant below, plaintiff in error in this court, assigned for error the charges of the court above recited. Mr. J. M. Adams and R. P. Ranney for plaintiff in error. Mr. Stevenson Burke (Mr. William B. Sanders was with him) for defendants in error. MR. JUSTICE WOODS delivered the opinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language, and continued : We think there was error in the charges complained of. To test their correctness we must assume the truth of the facts which the testimony submitted to the jury tended to prove. It was the duty of the court to submit to the consideration of the jury the testimony adduced by the defendant to sustain the defences set up in his answer, and the charge should have been based on the hypothesis that the defences which the testimony tended to prove were proven. The evidence tended to show that no fraud was practised by the defendant in procur Opinion of the Court. ing the power of attorney; in fact, the charge proceeds on this assumption; it tended to show that the plaintiffs, after full conference with the defendant, consented that he might secretly conduct the negotiations for the sale, that he might manage the sale of the property in his own way, and that he should be free to dispose of his own half as he pleased; that, in case he sold their half for $200,000, he might sell his own half for any price he could get. If the plaintiffs gave their consent in advance of any sale, it was immaterial to them what price the defendant got for his share of the land, and he was under no obligation to disclose the price to the plaintiffs and ask-their consent to retain it. The effect of the charge of the court was to withdraw from the jury all the evidence tending to show the antecedent assent of the plaintiffs, fairly obtained, to the sale made by the defendant, and to instruct the jury that nothing but their subsequent assent could be effectual. This was error. Adams v. Roberts, 2 How. 486; Reese v. Beck, 24 Ala. 651; Grube v. Nichols, 36 Ill. 92; Chappell v. Allen, 38 Missouri, 213, 220. The charge having assumed that there was no fraud in the procuring of the power of attorney, and the defendant having submitted testimony tending to show that there was no fraud in his doings after the power of attorney was procured, but that whatever was subsequently done by him in making the sale was done with the consent of the plaintiffs given in advance, it was error to charge the jury that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, unless the defendant informed the plaintiffs at what price he could sell or had sold his share, and they renewed their consent that he might retain it. For the error indicated The judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial; and it is so ordered. Opinion of the Court. SNYDER v. UNITED STATES. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Submitted November 4, 1884.-Decided November 17, 1884. A general verdict, upon an information in several counts for a single forfeiture under the internal revenue laws, is valid if one count is good. A verdict which speaks of “evaluating," instead of “valuing,” is not therefore insufficient to support a judgment. This was an information in several counts under section 3372 of the Revised Statutes, for the forfeiture of the tobacco, machinery, tools and materials in a tobacco manufactory, for violations of the internal revenue laws. The property was released upon the claimant's giving a bond to abide the final decree. The claimant demurred to the information as not setting forth any facts warranting the seizure or forfeiture of the property. The demurrer was overruled, the claimant filed an answer, and upon a trial a verdict was returned in this form: "We, the jury, find a verdict for the government, evaluating the goods and machinery seized at a sum of one thousand dollars." The claimant moved, in arrest of judgment, that several of the counts were insufficient, and that the verdict was general upon all the counts, and was vague and uncertain, and not responsive to the issue. The motion was overruled, and judgment rendered for the United States, and the claimant sued out a writ of error. Mr. J. D. Rouse and Mr. William Grant for plaintiff in error. Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Maury for defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language, and continued : Informations under the revenue laws for the forfeiture of goods, seeking no judgment of fine or imprisonment against Syllabus. any person, are not strictly criminal cases, in which the decisions of the Circuit Court are final, unless a division of opinion is certified; but they are civil actions, of which this court has jurisdiction in error, without regard to the sum or value in dispute. Rev. Stat. § 699; Pettigrew v. United States, '97 U. S. 385. Yet, as has been expressly adjudged, they are so far in the nature of criminal proceedings, as to come within the rule that a general verdict, upon several counts seeking in different forms one object, must be upheld if one count is good. Clifton v. United States, 4 How. 242, 250. As one of the counts in this case is admitted to be good, it is unnecessary to consider the objections taken to the other counts. The verdict, though expressed in bad English, clearly manifested the intention and finding of the jury upon the issue submitted to them, and the court rightly gave judgment upon it. Rev. Stat. § 954; Parks v. Turner, 12 How. 39, 46; Lincoln v. Iron Co., 103 U. S. 412. Judgment affirmed. LABETTE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS & Others v. UNITED STATES ex rel. MOULTON. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Submitted October 24, 1884.-Decided November 17, 1884. Mandamus will lie against county commissioners to compel steps to enforce a judgment recovered against an incorporated township within the county, when the law casts upon them the duty of providing for its satisfaction, and when mandamus is, in other respects, the proper remedy. Under the statutes of Kansas referred to in the case and opinion, it was the duty of the county commissioners to make the proper levy of a tax for payment of bonds of a township in the county issued in payment of a subscription to railroad stock. The assent and concurrence of the trustee of the township was not necessary. One writ of mandamus against all officers concerned in the separate but cooperative steps for levying and collecting a tax is the proper and effective remedy to enforce its collection. Statement of Facts. The relator, on June 7, 1877, recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, against the township of Oswego, in the county of Labette, in that State, for $9,221.34, with interest and costs, which is still in force and unpaid. That judgment was recovered upon coupons for unpaid interest on bonds, issued in the name and on behalf of Oswego township, by the Board of County Commissioners of Labette County, pursuant to the act of the Legislature of the State, entitled "An Act to enable municipal town- . ships to subscribe for stock in any railroad and to provide for the payment of the same," approved February 25, 1870, and were payable to the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company or bearer. On his information, an alternative writ of mandamus was allowed by the Circuit Court, June 10, 1881. The command of the writ was as follows: That" the said Board of County Commissioners of Labette County, State of Kansas, do forthwith levy and collect and pay over, or cause to be collected and paid over, to the relator, a tax on all the taxable property within the township of Oswego as constituted in the year 1870, and to do and perform in the manner and at the time required by law each and every and all singular the matters and things in respect to this special tax that are required by law by you to be done in respect to general taxation; and we do further command that you, the said clerk of the said board of the said county, do enter or record the levy of such tax, and enter the same on a tax roll or list, and record the proceedings of said board in respect to such taxation, and all proceedings that by law should be had and recorded in reference to taxation, and determine, extend and carry out the sum or sums of money to be levied or extended against each and every tract or lot of land, and all other taxable property, as provided by said laws, and set down such tax in a separate column, and complete the said tax roll or list in the manner and at the time required by law, and attach thereto your certificate and the seal of your office and the seal of your county and corporation, and that you deliver the same, so sealed and signed, to the treasurer of your said county, at the time and in the manner required by law, and |