Opinion of the Court. Mr. Hiram T. Gilbert for plaintiff in error. Mr. Daniel Kent Tenney and Mr. Samuel P. McConnell for defendant in error. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. We are of opinion that the Supreme Court of Illinois in rendering judgment denied no title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set up or claimed by defendant under the laws of the United States, and that this writ of error cannot be maintained. The contention of plaintiff in error is that the state court decided "either, first, that the cashier, Braden, by virtue of his office, had, under the laws of the United States regulating national banks, implied authority to borrow money in the name of the defendant and bind it to repayment thereof; or, second, that the transaction out of which the discounting of the Braden note arose, which transaction consisted of the original purchase of the fifty shares of the bank's stock, the giving of the Hopkins note, and the payment thereof out of the moneys of the bank was one which, in law, could be regarded as a transaction of the bank." And that therefore the state court decided against an immunity from liability expressly set up or claimed by the Chemical National Bank under the laws of the United States. The Appellate Court reviewed the judgment of the Superior Court for errors committed on the trial, and, finding none, affirmed it, and the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court; and if no such claims were set up in the trial court, the Supreme Court, in approving the affirmance of its judgment by the Appellate Court, could not be held to have decided against a claim with which the trial court had not been called upon to deal. It does not appear that the immunity from liability was expressly claimed by plaintiff in error in the trial court on the ground that the bank could retain the money because it was obtained by means in excess of the powers of its cashier or other officers. Opinion of the Court. The propositions on which the trial court was asked to rule were manifestly directed to the right of recovery on the note as such, under the special count, and certainly fell far short of a claim of the character suggested as a defence to a recovery under the common counts. Moreover, the question of liability, whatever the authority of these bank officers to borrow this money for the bank, depended upon general principles of law applicable under the particular facts. Western National Bank v. Armstrong, 152 U. S. 346, 352, 353. Nor can we perceive that the Supreme Court denied any immunity from liability claimed as arising out of the purchase by the bank of its own stock other than to prevent loss on previous indebtedness. The decision of the Supreme Court rested on the fact that that purchase of stock and the loaning of the money from the City Bank of Portage were two distinct transactions, and this was a ground broad enough to sustain the judgment without deciding any Federal question at all. It is said that the Supreme Court had no power to decide any controverted question of fact, but we cannot review the decision of that court in that respect, even if the position were well taken; and we do not understand that the Supreme Court did so decide. It is true that, under sections 87 and 89 of the Practice Act, the Supreme Court of Illinois does not reëxamine controverted questions of fact, but it nevertheless examines the evidence bearing upon the issues of fact determined to see what principles of law are involved in a controversy, and whether they are properly applied by the trial court. Sexton v. Chicago, 107 Illinois, 323, 326; Postal Telegraph Co. v. Lathrop, 131 Illinois, 575, 580. In this case the Supreme Court recapitulated the evidence as being that on which the trial court rendered judgment in order to disclose the basis of the ruling that plaintiff was entitled to recover. The affirmance by the Appellate Court of the judgment of the trial court without any recital of the facts found conclusively settles all controverted questions of fact necessary to support the judgment. Utica & Deer Park Bridge Co. v. Iron Commissioners, 101 Illinois, 518; Bernstein v. Roth, 145 Illinois, 189. If the Appellate Court disposes of a cause on Statement of the Case. a finding of facts different from the finding of the trial court, it is its duty to recite in its final judgment the facts so found, (Rev. Stat. Ill. c. 110, § 87; 2 Starr & Curt. 1842,) but there was no such finding of facts by the Appellate Court here, and it is to be presumed that that court found the facts in the same way as did the trial court. As the Supreme Court proceeded to judgment upon the facts as thus determined, we must accept its view as controlling. Writ of error dismissed. UNITED STATES v. THORNTON. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 138. Submitted December 20, 1895. - Decided January 6, 1896. The claimant originally enlisted at Washington in August, 1878, and was discharged at Mare Island, California, November 6, 1886, receiving (under the provisions of Rev. Stat. § 1290, as amended by the act of February 27, 1877,) travel pay and commutation of subsistence from Mare Island to Washington. He did not return to Washington, but November 10, 1886, reënlisted at Mare Island as a private, and in the course of his service was returned to Washington, where, at the expiration of two years and four months, he was discharged at his own request. Held, That, as the service was practically a continuous one, and his second discharge occurred at the place of his original enlistment, he was not entitled to his commutation for travel and subsistence to the place of his second enlistment. THE petition in this case set forth that the petitioner enlisted as a private in the marine corps, November 10, 1886, at Mare Island, California, to serve five years, and was discharged March 13, 1889, at Washington D. C., by order of the Secretary of the Navy; that, under the provisions of Rev. Stat. § 1290, he was entitled to receive transportation and subsistence or travel pay and commutation of subsistence from the place of his discharge to that of his enlistment; that he made written application for the same to the Treasury Department, and was informed that his claim was adjusted and transmitted Statement of the Case. to the Second Comptroller, who declined to allow the case, on the ground that he was discharged at his own request before the expiration of his term of enlistment. The case having been heard before the Court of Claims, that court upon the evidence found the following facts: 1. The claimant enlisted at the age of 13 years 1 month and 3 days, in the marine corps of the United States, at Washington, D. C., on August 29, 1878, for a term of 7 years 10 months and 27 days, and was then "bound to learn music" in said corps. April 17, 1880, he was rated as a drummer. November 6, 1886, he was discharged from the service at Mare Island, California, as a drummer. November 10, 1886, he reënlisted at Mare Island, California, as a private in said corps for a term of five years. On March 13, 1889, before the expiration of the last-mentioned term of enlistment, Thornton, as a private in said corps, was, at his own request, and not by way of punishment for an offence, discharged from service at the Marine Barracks, Washington, D. C., by direction of the Secretary of the Navy. The claimant was settled with in full for all pay and allowances except transportation and subsistence in kind, or, in lieu thereof, travel pay and commutation of subsistence, from Washington, D. C., the place of his discharge, to Mare Island, California, the place where he had reënlisted. And when he was discharged, at the end of his term of enlistment, he received travel pay and commutation of subsistence computed at the rate of one day for every twenty miles of the distance from Mare Island, California, to Washington, D. C. 2. The travel pay and commutation of subsistence of a private in the marine corps when discharged in the third year of his second term of enlistment, and when he is allowed the same, are stated by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department to be one day's pay at 60 cents per day, and one ration commuted at 30 cents for each twenty miles of the distance from place of discharge to place of last enlistment; and in the settlement of accounts they adopt 3136 miles as the distance from Washington, D. C., to Mare Island, California. Opinion of the Court. According to this practice the travel pay and commutation of subsistence on such a discharge would be for 157 days' pay, at 60 cents.. 157 rations, at 30 cents.. Total.... $94 20 47 10 $141 30 3. Under a long-standing construction by the accounting officers of the Treasury Department of the law embraced in section 1290 of the Revised Statutes, it has been the practice to refuse travel pay and commutation of subsistence to enlisted men from the place of their discharge to the place of enlistment, when they have been discharged at their own request prior to the expiration of their term of enlistment. The only exception made under this practice is when an enlisted man is discharged at his own request after twenty years of faithful service. (Army Regulations, 1863, par. 163.) 4. Before bringing suit here the claimant presented the claim set forth in his petition to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department, and it was disallowed in accordance with the practice mentioned in finding 3. The court also found as a conclusion of law, that the claimant was entitled to recover of the defendants the sum of one hundred and forty-one dollars and thirty cents ($141.30), for which amount judgment was entered, and the government appealed. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dodge for appellants. Mr. Robert Thornton, appellee, submitted on the record. MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court. By Rev. Stat. § 1290, as amended by the act of February 27, 1877, c. 69, 19 Stat. 240, 244, "when a soldier is discharged from the service, except by way of punishment for an offence, he shall be allowed transportation and subsistence from the place of his discharge to the place of his enlistment, enrolment, or original muster into the service. The Government may furnish the same in kind, but in case it shall not do so, he shall be allowed travel pay and commutation of subsistence, for such time as may be sufficient for him to travel from the place of discharge to the place of his enlistment, en |