delivered the opinion of the court.

The question presented to the court below on the trial of this case was, whether in the computation of longevity pay for an officer of the army of the United States, under the provisions .of sect.- 7 of the act of June 18, 1878, c. 268 (20 Stat. 145), his period of service as a cadet at West Point was to be taken into account. The court decided it was not, and an elaborate opinion to that effect was filed ; but the record shows that, after the decision was announced, a proforma judgment was rendered, with the consent of the Attorney-General, in favor of the claimant. This is stated in the judgment to have been done because the case vas one of a class, and the claimant, if judgment should be given against him, could not appeal. In Pacific Railroad v. Ketchum (101 U. S. 289), we decided that when a decree was rendered by consent, no errors would, be considered here on an appeal which Avere in laAv Avaived by such a consent. In our opinion, this case comes Avithiir that rule. The consent to the judgment below was in law a Avaiver of the error now complained of. For this reason the judgment below must be affirmed; and it is

So ordered.