delivered the opinion of the court.

In procéeding to render a personal judgment against the defendants, for the value of the cotton, as found by it, the District Court erred.

Without adverting to the principles settled in the cases of the Union Insurance Company v. United States, * and Armstrong’s Foundry, † we are glearly of opinion — first, that the *580 information, at most, presents only a case of the unlawful conversion of property to the use of the appellants, and that for redress of such an inj ury this proceeding • by information cannot be sustained; and second, that neither the act of 1861 nor the act of 1862 contemplated any proceeding, as in admiralty, where there existed no specific property or proceeds capable of seizure and capture.

' The decree of the District Court must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to the District Court to cause restitution to be made to the appellants of whatever sum of money they have been compelled to pay-under that decree.