and convenient description of the land for insertion in the patent. Their authentication and approval by the then Surveyor General amounted to no more than a certificate by him that they were accurately taken from the survey made and approved in 1851, as shown on the records of his office. See Joplin v. Chachere, supra, 102, 107.

A further contention is that there could be no laches, nor any adverse possession, prior to the issue of patent, because the claimants were prohibited by the Act of March 3, 1807, c. 46, 2 Stat. 445, from exercising acts of proprietorship until their claim was " recognized and confirmed" by the United States. A complete answer to this is that their claim was both recognized and confirmed by the Act of 1828, and the confirmation became effective when the claim was surveyed and the survey approved in 1851. The subsequent patent, although serving as a convenient muniment of title as confirmed, added nothing to the force of the confirmation. Langdeau v. Hanes, supra, 530, and other cases before cited.

Reliance is also had on a provision in the local statute of limitation declaring that, as respects lands derived from the United States, the period of limitation should not begin to run "until the passage of the title" from the Government. The answer to the last contention is equally good here. Such title as the United States possessed passed to the claimants when the confirmation became effective through the approved survey. The cases just cited are conclusive on this point.

Lastly, complaint is made of the findings of fact sustaining the defenses of adverse possession and laches. The courts below concurred in these findings and explained them in considered opinions. The record shows with certainty that the findings had very substantial support in the evidence. This Court accepts concurrent findings with such support. Morewood v. Enequist, 23 How. 491, 495;

Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U. S. 1, 14; National Bank of Athens v. Shackelford, 239 U. S. 81, 82; Yuma County Water Ass'n. v. Schlecht, 262 U. S. 138, 146; United States v. State Investment Co., 264 U. S. 206, 211.

No question is presented which can be regarded as debatable in this Court, so there is no need for holding the case for further argument.

Decree affirmed.

LIPSHITZ & COHEN v. UNITED STATES.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.

No. 68. Argued October 21, 1925.-Decided November 16, 1925.

An agent of the United States listed junk for sale at several forts, the list setting forth the kinds, and weight of each, at each location, with a statement, however, that the weights shown were approximate and must be accepted as correct by the bidder. Plaintiffs, without other information or inquiry, bid a lump sum for the material, "as is where is," the purchaser to remove it; and the offer was accepted. The quantities turned out to be much less than those so listed. Held, a contract for the specific lots, without warranty of quantity; and that plaintiffs, standing on the contract, had no cause of action for the profits they would have made on resale if the quantities had been as listed.

Affirmed.

ERROR to a judgment of the District Court in favor of the United States, defendant in an action on a contract.

Mr. Henry A. Alexander, for plaintiffs in error.

Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant to the Attorney General Donovan, and Messrs. Howard W. Ameli and Joseph Henry Cohen, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, were on the brief, for the United States.

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiffs in error seek to recover profits which, it is alleged, would have been realized if the United States had complied with their agreement to deliver approximately 1,530,600 pounds of obsolete material. The cause was heard by the District Judge without a jury. He found the facts and upon them held that the contract had not been broken.

An agent of the United States put out a schedule which stated that certain obsolete material, classed as cast iron, cast and forged steel, armor steel, brass, bronze and lead, was held for sale at six specified forts. It set out the weights of each class at each place, and was headed—“ List of junk for sale and location of same. The weights as shown below are approximate and must be accepted as correct by the bidder." Plaintiffs in error made a written offer at the foot of the schedule sheet to pay $1,055, "for all the above described material, as is where is, for which we are enclosing you Cashier's check for 20% of the amount-$211—with our option to remove material within six months from acceptance of this bid. This was accepted May 24, 1922. "At the time the offer was made and accepted the plaintiff did not inspect the material for sale at any of the fortifications, and had no knowledge of such material other than that given by the contract. It was later found in junk piles at the various forts."

In the following July the purchasers began to remove the material and found nearly all items short. Aggregated, these shortages amounted to approximately onehalf of the total weight stated in the original schedule, but there is nothing to indicate bad faith. They complained but made no effort to repudiate or annul the contract.

Supporting his judgment in favor of the United States, the District Judge said—" Since the Government is not in

the business of buying and selling and its agents are authorized only to offer for sale such material as has been condemned as obsolete or useless, taking the language of this offer and acceptance I am of opinion that the contract must be construed as one offering to sell an approximate quantity of such cast iron, brass [cast and forged steel, bronze, armor steel] or lead, and as one offering to sell all of the materials of these descriptions which were on hand at the various points named, the intention being not to make a sale by the pound or ton, but to make an entire sale of specific lots of obsolete material, whether more or less than the weight, and to include all thereof.

I am satisfied that they [plaintiffs] cannot claim that this contract, worded as it was, has been broken because it turned out that there was less, even greatly less, of some of the materials described as on hand than the description would have led the purchaser to suppose. It is not made to appear that the United States failed or refused to deliver any of the material that was actually at the forts named at the time the contract was made."

We approve this construction of the agreement. Åpplicable principles of law were announced by Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for the court in Brawley v. United States, 96 U. S. 168, 171. The negotiations had reference to specific lots. The naming of quantities cannot be regarded as in the nature of a warranty, but merely as an estimate of the probable amounts in reference to which good faith only could be required of the party making it. It is not necessary for us to consider whether the contract is sufficiently formal to comply with the requirements of R. S. 3744.

The judgment of the court below must be

Affirmed.

Argument for Petitioner.

MARGOLIN v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

No. 254. Argued October 5, 1925.-Decided November 16, 1925.

1. Section 13 of the War Risk Insurance Act, as amended May 20, 1918, forbids an attorney to charge more than three dollars for any services rendered a beneficiary in respect of a claim under the Act for insurance on the life of a deceased soldier, when no action in court is instituted; and makes the violation of this prohibition a misdemeanor. P. 101.

2. So construed, the section is not in conflict with the Fifth Amendment. Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U. S. 170. Id.

3. Disregard of the plain language of a statute can not be justified by reports of the committees in Congress which recommended the bill, or by communications from the head of a Department incorporated in the reports. Id.

3 Fed. (2d) 602, affirmed.

CERTIORARI to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a sentence imposed by the District Court on the petitioner for receiving a fee of $1500 as compensation for services in preparing and presenting to the Veterans' Bureau a claim for insurance money under the War Risk Insurance Act.

Miss Susan Brandeis and Mr. Benjamin S. Kirsh, for petitioner.

The reports of the House and Senate committees accompanying the Bill, prior to enactment, and the communication of the Secretary of the Treasury, incorporated therein, establish, beyond doubt, that the limitation of $3.00" for such assistance as may be required in the preparation and execution of the necessary papers" applies only to the clerical work of filling out a form. The trial judge and the Circuit Court of Appeals therefore erroneously construed the provisions of the Act in deciding that