delivered the opinion of the court.

The parties now before us complain that they were not allowed to take the proceeds of the sales. But they ought' not to have been allowed to intervene. They had no interest, even if they were lien holders, in the confiscation proceedings. It was only the right of John Slidell, whatever that fight was, that could be condemned and sold, and the sale under the judgment of condemnation in no degree disturbed their liens. . By the decree of condemnation the United States succeeded to the position of Slidell, and the sale had no other purpose or effect than to make the thing confiscated available for the uses designated by the Confiscation Act. This was decided in Bigelow v. Forrest, * and more recently in Day v.. Micou † The District Court, therefore, acted correctly in rejecting the claims of the appellants and plaintiffs in error, even if. the reasons given for the rejection wore insufficient, and the Circuit Court was not in error in affirming what the District Court did.

The action of the Circuit Court in the premises'is, therefore,

Affirmed in each of the oases.