and with or without terms, allow an amendment of a writ of error, when there is a mistake in the teste, or a seal is wanting, or the writ is made returnable on a wrong day, or when the statement of the title or the parties is defective, if such defect can be remedied by reference to the accompanying record, and ty, C. C. A., 146 Fed. 969. A writ is insufficient which names but one of the plaintiffs or defendants in error, and describes the rest on the same side as "and others,' De Neale v. Archer, 8 Pet. 526, 8 L. ed. 1033; Miller v. McKenzie, 10 Wall. 582, 19 L. ed. 1043; or which describes parties by their firm name instead of their individual names, The Protector, 11 Wall. 82, 20 L. ed. 47; Moore v. Simonds, 100 U. S. 145, 25 L. ed. 590; Godbe v. Tootle, 154 U. S. 576, and 19 L. ed. 831; unless the record shows the partners' names, Estis v. Trabue, 128 U. S. 225, 32 L. ed. 437; or, which describes parties as "the heirs of Nicholas Wilson," Wilson v. Life & Fire Ins. Co., 12 Pet. 140, 9 L. ed. 1032; or as "the ship Protector and owners," The Protector, 11 Wall. 82, 20 L. ed. 47. An appeal by William L. Heminway, Treasurer of the State of Mississippi, and Sylvester Gwinn, Auditor of said State, and ex officio the Levee Board of Mississippi District Number One," was held sufficient to bring up for review a decree against the Levee Board, although a statute had been passed, entitled "An act to abolish the Levee Board of District Number One, and to pay the debts of said Board," which abolished the offices of the members of such board, and substituted the officers who took the appeal in their place to settle up the unfinished business and pay the debts of the board. Hemingway v. 66 Stansell, 106 U. S. 399, 27 L. ed. 245. An incorrect designation of the parties as plaintiff and defendant, when it follows the title of the cause in the court below, is not a fatal defect in the writ. H. Hackfeld & Co. v. U. S., C. C. A., 141 Fed. 9. It is the better practice to include in the writ of error a description of the position of the parties as plaintiffs and defendants below, as well of their positions in the court of review; but if the latter statement is made, the omission of the former will not avoid the writ. Missina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355, 361, 18 L. ed. 810, 812. Where the writ of error contains the names of all the parties who appear on the record, the court of review cannot presume that there are other parties, and for that reason dismiss the writ. Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 545, 28 L. ed. 1128. Where the writ of error omitted parties named in the citation, the court dismissed the writ. Kail v. Wetmore, 6 Wall. 451, 18 L. ed. 862. Where two actions had been consolidated for trial, tried before the same jury, which returned separate verdicts, and separate judgments entered, although, by consent, a single bill of exceptions was allowed; it required two separate writs of error were necessary. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Van Elderen, C. C. A., 137 Fed. 557. A writ of error which does not name any return-day may be amended by the insertion of a return-day. Evans v. Brown, 109 U. in all other particulars of form, provided the defect has not prejudiced, and the amendment will not injure, the defendant in error.25 A high authority has said of the statute authorizing such amendments: "It is difficult to see, in reading it, what defect cannot now be amended in the discretion of the court.' S. 180, 27 L. ed. 898. But where there was no application for an amendment the writ was dismissed. Lea v. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 154 U. S. 659, and 25 L. ed. 882. Where the writ was in the name of the President of the United States, but bore the teste of the Chief Justice of the State court, with his signature and that of the clerk of such court, and the seal of such court, an amendment of the writ was allowed. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kirk, 111 U. S. 486, 28 L. ed. 481. A writ of error to a State court need not contain a recital that it is directed to the final judgment of such court, nor that the court is the highest court of law or equity in the State. Buell v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312, 5 L. ed. 624. The appeal, citation, and assignment of errors may be amended by correcting an error in the date of the order which the appellant seeks to review. Lovell McConnell Mfg. Co. v. International Automobile League, C. C. A., 199 Fed. 989. 25 U. S. R. S., § 1005; Cotter v. Ala. G. S. R. Co., C. C. A., 61 Fed. 747. 26 Curtis, Jurisdiction of U. S. Courts, 87. Where the paper purporting to be a writ of error was in the name and bore the test of the Chief Justice of a State court, and was signed by the clerk and sealed with the seal of such court, it was held that there was no writ to amend, and that consequently the defect 26 could not be cured. Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 278, 26 L. ed. 447. The teste of the District Judge and of the clerk of the District Court in a writ of error to review the judgment of such court is a defect, which can be cured by amendment. Long v. Farmers' State Bank, C. C. A., 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 585, 147 Fed. 360. The writ may be amended to bring in new parties, Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Pendleton, 115 U. S. 339, 29 L. ed. 432; Gilbert v. Hopkins, C. C. A., 198 Fed. 849, 851; Rininger v. Puget Sound Electric Ry., C. C. A., 220 Fed. 419; and such an amendment may be allowed, even after argument, Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Pendleton, 115 U. S. 339, 29 L. ed. 432; but in all such cases notice must be duly served upon the new parties, Gilbert v. Hopkins, C. C. A., 198 Fed. 849, 851; and, if after argument, a reargument will be ordered, Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Pendleton, 115 U. S. 339, 29 L. ed. 432. A substitution of a plaintiff in error was made where the person substituted sued out the writ in the name of the original plaintiff in error, each claiming to be the personal representative of a decedent. Walton v. Marietta Chair Co., 157 U. S. 342, 39 L. ed. 725; Green County, Kentucky v. Thomas' Executor, 211 U. S. 598, 53 L. ed. 343. An error in the title of the writ and of the petition and order therefor and assignments by entitling these in the wrong court may be cor An appeal cannot, by amendment, be changed to a writ of It is the proper practice to file a petition for the writ, and to have it allowed by a judge of the court to which it is addressed, or a judge of the court of review.28 The petition should be accompanied with an assignment of errors, which should be set out separately and particularly each error asserted and intended to be urged. No writ of error to a District Court is allowed till such an assignment of errors is filed. When the error alleged is to the admission or to the rejection of evidence, the assignment of errors should quote the full substance of the evidence. When the error alleged is to the charge of the court, the asignment of errors should set out the part referred to in the words of the charge, whether it be in instructions given or instructions refused. When the error alleged is to the ruling upon the report of a master, the specification should state the exception to the report and action of the court upon it.29 Where the defendant in error had opposed a motion for leave to withdraw a writ of error, issued before an assignment of errors had been filed; it was held that he thereby waived his right to move to dismiss the writ because prematurely issued.30 There should be annexed to and returned with every writ of rected. Billings v. U. S., 232 U. S. 261, 277; Moss v. Gulf Compress Co., 202 Fed. 657. A writ of error directed to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was treated as a cross writ of error directed to a judgment of the District Court. Billings v. U. S., 232 U. S. 261, 277. A general appearance in the court of review for a term without a motion to dismiss is a waiver of a defect in the names of the defendants in error or respondents, U. S. v. Hopewell, C. C. A., 51 Fed. 798; or in the return-day, Shute v. Keyser, 149 U. S. 649, 37 L. ed. 884; but not a waiver of a motion to dismiss the case upon another ground which is not a mere informality, except the lapse of time. Goodwin v. Fox, 120 U. S. 775, 30 L. ed. 815; infra, 28 See authorities cited in note 2 supra; and § 692c, supra. 29 U. S. R. S., § 997; S. C. Rule 35; C. C. A. Rule 14, 24. See infra, §§ 701, 705e, 707. As to the practice upon appeals from the taxation of costs, see Campbell Pr. P. & Mfg. Co. v. Duplex Pr. P. Co., C. C. A., 101 Fed. 282. 30 Alaska Un. Gold Min. Co. v. Muset, C. C. A., 114 Fed. 66. error, an authenticated transcript of the record, an assignment of errors, and a prayer for reversal, with a citation to the adverse party.31 The writ of error does not take effect until it is filed or lodged in the office of the clerk of the court, the proceedings of which are brought up for review or in case such court has been abolished with its successor.3 32 A writ of error is served by lodging a copy with the clerk of the court to which it is directed.33 It must be thus served before its return-day.34 Under the old practice it was held that no mandamus would issue to compel the allowance of a writ of error by a Circuit or District Court.35 No mandamus will issue to compel a judge of a Circuit or District Court to sign a citation or approve security upon writ of error or appeal, until an application for such signature or approval has been made to the judge of the court. of review.36 Where the first writ of error has expired because of the failure to file the return or transcript in due time, a second writ may issue if the time for review has not expired.37 § 700. Appeals. An appeal must be allowed by a judge who has power to sign a citation, namely, by a judge of the court appealed from or from the appellate court.1 A bond is not 31 U. S. R. S., § 997. See infra, §§ 700a, 701, 704, 707. A prayer that the writ may issue "for the correction of errors so complained of" is sufficient. Springfield S. D. & Tr. Co. v. Attica, C. C. A., 85 Fed. 387. The failure to attach the writ of error to the transcript is not a fatal defect, but the attachment may be made in the court of review. Cotter v. Ala. G. S. R. Co., C. C. A., 61 Fed. 747. 32 United States v. Alamogordo Lumber Co., C. C. A., 202 Fed. 200. 33 Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447, 18 L. ed. 377. See U. S. v. Alamogordo Lumber Co., C. C. A., 202 Fed. 700. 34 Wood v. Lide, 4 Cranch, 180, 2 L. ed. 588; Pickett v. Legerwood, 7 Pet. 144, 8 L. ed. 638. Cf. Men denhall v. Hall, 134 U. S. 559, 33 L. ed. 1012. See Ex parte Parker, 120 U. S. 737, 30 L. ed. 818. But see U. S. R. S., § 799; Trip v. Santa Rosa St. Rr. Co., 144 U. S. 126, 36 L. ed. 371. 35 Ex parte Virginia Com'rs, 112 U. S. 177, 28 L. ed. 691. 36 Ex parte Virginia Com'rs, 112 U. S. 177, 28 L. ed. 691. 37 Gould v. U. S., C. C. A., 205 Fed. 883. $ 700. 1 Barrel v. Transp. Co., 3 Wall. 424, 10 L. ed. 168; Pierce v. Cox, 9 Wall, 786, 19 L. ed. 786; Sage v. Railroad Co., 96 U. S. 712, 24 L. ed. 641; supra, § 699. A formal order allowing an appeal is not essential. Railroad Co. v. Bradleys, 7 Wall. 575, 19 L. ed. 274; Sage v. Railroad Co., 96 U. S. 712, essential to the validity of an appeal, although a bond must subsequently be filed.2 A mandamus will be granted to compel a judge to allow an appeal in a proper case. The allowance of an appeal is not conclusive, and does not even imply that the judge who authorizes the appeal has made up his own mind that the party is legally entitled to it. It has been said that it is 24 L. ed. 641; Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U. S. 262, 26 L. ed. 989; Chamberlain Transportation Co. v. South Pier Coal Co., C. C. A., 126 Fed. 165. An approval of a bond upon an appeal is equivalent to the allowance of the appeal. Killian v. Clark, 111 U. S. 784, 28 L. ed. 599. Not, however, when the time to appeal has previously elapsed. Ibid. It has been held that a district judge cannot allow an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals from the order of another district judge in another district of the same circuit. U. S. v. Moy Yee Tai, C. C. A., 109 Fed. 1. It has been said that he cannot allow an appeal from a District Court in another district. Ibid. A member of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has power to allow an appeal from the District Court of Alaska, under the general rules governing such procedure, which are made applicable by the Code of Alaska. Copper River Min. Co. v. McClellan, C. C. A., 138 Fed. 333. Appeals from the Court of Claims must be allowed by the court if im session; in vacation by the chief justice of that court. The limitation of time for granting such an appeal ceases to run from the time an application is made for its allowApp. Ct. Cl., Rule 3. The Court of Claims has power to revoke an order allowing an appeal at the request of the appellant, while the record remains therein at the term when the order was granted. Ex ance. parte Roberts, 15 Wall. 384, 21 L. ed. 131; supra, §§ 686, 690. It has been said that a District Court has no power after an appeal has been perfected and the transcript filed to set aside an allowance of an appeal. Keyser v. Farr, 105 U. S. 265, 26 L. ed. 1025; Rector v. Lipscomb, 141 U. S. 557, 35 L. ed. 857. But a Circuit Court was al-. lowed, at the term when it allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which had not been perfected, to set aside such allowance and grant an appeal to the Circuit Court of Ap peals. Aspen Min. Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, 35, 37 L. ed. 986, 987. And a Circuit Court, when the allowance was made under a mistake of fact, revoked the same. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. McClure, C. C. A., 78 Fed. 211. An omission of the names of the appellees from the order of allowance is waived by naming them in the appeal bond. Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 104, 32 L. ed. 872. V. 2 Edmondson Bloomshire, 7 Wall. 306, 311, 19 L. ed. 91, 92. 3 U. S. v. Adams, 6 Wall. 101, 18 L. ed. 792; U. S. v. Gomez, 3 Wall. 752, 18 L. ed. 212; Ex parte Railroad Co., 95 U. S. 221, 24 L. ed. 355. 4 Taney, C. J., in Callan v. May, 2 Black, 541, 543, 17 L. ed. 281, 282. Ordinarily a judge has no right to refuse to allow an appeal for which application is duly made. Pullman's P. C. Co. v. Central Transp. Co., 71 |