session under that deed, and retained it by her tenants until the date of her death, and that her tenants remained in such possession when this suit was begun." The court found that there was nothing to show that Julia Wilson had not died seized of the property, and that it was not until her death in 1887 that defendant became repossessed of it. The case was reversed, and remanded with leave to amend the pleadings and put in additional testimony.

Upon a rehearing in the Superior Court, a decree was entered in favor of the defendant Wilson, establishing his title to the premises, subject to the repayment of certain taxes paid by Gage. Upon the second appeal to the Supreme Court that court held that, it having been shown that defendant and his sister had been in possession of the property for more than twenty years prior to the bringing of that suit, defendant had a good title by limitation, unless it was cut off and defeated by the assignee's sale to Snow; but that as he had sold to his sister, Julia Wilson, in July, 1877, thirteen months before the bankruptcy, and she had taken possession, he had no title, and none passed to Snow by purchase from the assignee.

Complainants, however, took the position that the deed from Wilson to his sister was not absolute, but was made to secure a debt, and was constructively a mortgage, and that an equity of redemption remained in Frederick R. Wilson, which would pass to Snow as purchaser at the time of the assignee's sale. But the court held that, under the arrangement between the parties, the deed became absolute long before the defendant was adjudged a bankrupt. That under the law of Illinois, when land has been conveyed by deed, absolute in form, though intended as security for the payment of a debt, the payment of the debt may be abandoned, and the deed treated as an absolute conveyance, although originally intended as a mortgage, and that such arrangement may be made by parol, and be binding. 202 Illinois, 83.

It thus appears that the case turned upon the validity of the deed from the appellee to his sister, Julia Wilson. It was

insisted that the deed was either fraudulent and void as against creditors, or that a residuary interest remained in Frederick R. Wilson, which would pass under the assignee's sale. This was a local and not a Federal question. The deed, having been made a year before the proceedings in bankruptcy were begun, and eleven years before the commencement of this suit, was not attacked as invalid under the bankrupt law of 1867, then in force, but as a fraudulent conveyance under the state law. The question of fraud was ignored by the state court, although it was directly involved in the issue, and hence must be treated as overruled. It was admitted that, if the property were that of Julia Wilson at the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings, nothing passed under the assignee's sale; and it was only upon the theory that it was the property of the bankrupt that the assignee could convey anything to the purchaser. To reverse the state court upon this point would be to hold that it improperly construed its own laws with reference to fraudulent conveyances. The assignee's sale as a conveyance of the property of the bankrupt was not attacked in any way. He was a mere conduit through which the interest of Frederick R. Wilson, if he had any for himself or his creditors, passed to Snow. We have repeatedly held that, when the question in a state court is not whether, if the bankrupt had title, it would pass to his assignee, but whether he had title at all, and the state court decided that he had not, no Federal question is presented. Scott v. Kelly, 22 Wall. 57; McKenna v. Simpson, 129 U. S. 506. The same principle was applied to a different class of cases in Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co., 175 U. S. 571; De Lamar's Co. v. Nesbitt, 177 U. S. 523. In Williams v. Heard, 140 U. S. 529, relied upon by the plaintiffs in error, the property in dispute belonged admittedly to the bankrupts, and the question was whether it was of such a character as to pass to their assignee. Of course, this involved a construction of the bankrupt act.

If there be any Federal question, it arises from the denial of the petition of the appellee, filed in the bankruptcy court

September 17, 1889, about two months after the sale was confirmed, to set aside and vacate such sale for inadequacy of price and want of notice that the sale would take place. It is insisted that this denial was res judicata of Wilson's interest in the property, and that the refusal of the court to so treat it denied to the order of the bankruptcy court the full faith and credit to which it was entitled. But on referring to the order of sale of June 27, 1889, we find that the assignee was directed to sell simply "the interest of such bankrupt and of said asssignee," without attempting to adjudicate what that interest was, or whether he had any interest at all. It was left for other courts in other proceedings to determine what his interest or that of his creditors was on August 30, 1878, the day on which he was adjudged a bankrupt. That interest would, of course, pass to the assignee. We have already seen that. the Supreme Court found he had none upon that day. The District Court authorized the sale of such as he had, but made no attempt to determine or guarantee that he had an interest that would pass by the sale. The refusal to set aside the sale was largely a matter of discretion, and may have been justified by the consideration that the bankrupt was not injured by the fact that it had taken place. There was certainly no attempt to adjudicate the amount of his interest.

The circumstance that nine years after his adjudication in bankruptcy he took title to the property as the devisee of his sister does not lend any significance to the fact that at the date of his bankruptcy his sister was the owner, in possession by tenants, and that the Supreme Court found her title to be absolute.

The decree of that court is, therefore,

Affirmed.

VOL. CXCV-27

Statement of the Case.

195 U.S.

UNITED STATES v. THOMAS.

THOMAS v. UNITED STATES.

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

Nos. 94, 95. Argued October 11, 1904. Decided December 5, 1904.

While the intention of Congress in the Navy Personnel Act of March 3, 1899, was to put officers of corresponding rank in the Army and Navy on the same general footing with respect to their general pay and to make the act prospective in its application to any future legislation by which the general pay of army officers might be increased, Congress may increase the pay of army officers for services in particular places and under special circumstances without thereby intending such increase to apply to naval officers.

A captain in the Navy is not entitled to the ten per cent additional pay given to army officers under the acts of May 26, 1900, and March 2, 1901, for services in Philippine and Chinese waters or for service beyond the limits of the States comprising the Union.

"

The term vessel employed by authority of law "within the meaning of § 1571, Rev. Stat., is restricted to vessels owned or chartered by, or otherwise engaged in the service of, the Government and while an officer is traveling on land or on a vessel other than one so employed by authority of law he is not entitled to pay for sea duty.

THIS was a petition for certain allowances claimed to be due petitioner as a captain in the United States Navy, under act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat. 1004, equalizing the pay of army and navy officers, and known as the Navy Personnel Act. The findings of fact are too long to be here reproduced, but the several items claimed by petitioner, and from the disposition of which these appeals are taken, are cited by counsel in their brief and by the Court of Claims as follows:

1. From May 26, 1900, to March 1, 1901, he was paid sea pay of a captain, at $4500 a year, and claims ten per cent increase of this pay for service in the Philippines and in China, under the acts of May 26, 1900, and March 2, 1901. 31 Stat. 205, 895.

2. From March 2, 1901, to June 11, 1901, he was paid the sea pay of a captain, $4500 a year, and claims ten per cent

increase of this pay for service outside the United States, under the provisions of the act of March, 2, 1901, 31 Stat. 895, 903.

3. From June 12, 1901, to September 30, 1901, he was paid sea pay at $4500 a year, and claims ten per cent increase under the act of March 2, 1901, for service outside the United States. During this time he was in the waters of the San Francisco Bay, traveling from San Francisco to Puget Sound, and in the waters of Puget Sound. This claim is made provisionally in case his service in Chinese and Philippine waters is not considered to be service "in China" and "in the Philippine Islands," entitling him to ten per cent increase from May 26, 1900, to March 1, 1901. In that event he would claim that his service in waters of the United States was beyond the limits of the States comprising the Union.

4. Between December 2, 1899, when relieved as commanding officer of the U. S. S. Lancaster, and ordered to report to. the Navy Department, and February 7, 1900, when he took command of the U. S. S. Baltimore at Hong Kong, China, he was paid only shore pay, $3825 a year, fifteen per cent less than sea pay. He claims sea pay, $4500 a year during that time.

The last item was disallowed. The first three items were at first disallowed, but on a rehearing were allowed and final judgment rendered for $568.29. 38 C. Cl. 113, 719. Both parties appealed to this court.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Pradt, with whom Mr. John Q. Thompson, Special Assistant Attorney, was on the brief, for the United States.

Mr. George A. King and Mr. William B. King for Charles M. Thomas.

MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case depends upon the construction given to section 13