delivered the opinion of the court.

^ The facts of this case are similar to those in Seibert v. Lewis, before the court at its October term, 1886, 122 U. S. 284, and it is admitted-by the counsel for the plaintiff in error that the decision there, if adhered to, will control here. He, however, as.ks us to reconsider our rulings and reverse our former judgment. We see no reason to justify such reconsideration and change of position. The very elaborate argument of counsel is but a re-presenta.tion of the reasons originally offered against the decision in that and analogous cases. Seibert v. Lewis was very carefully and elaborately considered, and to the doctrines there announced we adhere. Upon its authority

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.