47. The mode of taking the security, and the time for perfecting it, are within the discretion of the court below, and this court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion. Ib.

48. (Jan., 1829.) Where an appeal from the Circuit Court to this court was prayed by a number of the defendants, and one only executed the proper appeal-bond, the objection to the proceeding ought to have been taken by way of preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal for irregularity, on account of the failure to give the proper appeal-bond. Mandeville v. Riggs, 2 Pet. 482.

49. (Jan., 1832.) The transcript of the record showed that no appeal-bond was taken or approved by the judge who signed the citation in the cause. The appeal was dismissed. Boyce v. Grundy, 6 Pet. 777.

50. (Jan., 1844.) Where there are many parties in a case below, it is not necessary for them all to join in the appealbond. It is sufficient if they all appeal, and the bond be approved by the court. Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238.

51. (Dec., 1853.) This court, however, having a knowledge of the case, will express its views upon an important point of practice. Stafford v. Union Bank, 16 How. 135.

52. Where the appeal is intended to operate as a supersedeas, the security given in the appeal-bond must be equal to the amount of the decree, as it is in the case of a judgment at common law. Ib.

53. The two facts, namely, first, that the receiver appointed by the court below had given bond to a large amount, and second, that the persons to whom the property had been hired had given security for its safe keeping and delivery, do not affect the above result. Ib.

54. The security must, notwithstanding, be equal to the amount of the decree. Ib.

55. (Dec., 1853.) In order to act as a supersedeas upon a decree in chancery, the appeal-bond must be filed within ten

days after the rendition of the decree. In the present case, where the bond was not filed in time, a motion for a supersedeas is not sustained by sufficient reasons, and consequently must be overruled. Adams v. Law, 16 How. 144. 56. (Dec., 1855.) the judge out of court.

An appeal-bond may be approved of by Hudgins v. Kemp, 18 How. 531. 57. (Dec., 1856.) Where the judgment of the Circuit Court, in an action of ejectment, was against the defendant, in which nominal damages only were awarded, who sued out a writ of error, in order to bring the case before this court, this court cannot grant a motion to enlarge the security in the appeal-bond for the purpose of covering apprehended damages, which the plaintiff below thinks he may sustain by being kept out of his land. Roberts v. Cooper, 19 How. 373.

58. (Dec., 1859.) Where a motion was made to dismiss an appeal, upon the ground that no appeal-bond had been given, time was allowed the appellants within which to file the bond. If they complied with the order, the appeal was to stand; otherwise, to be dismissed. Bangs v. B. R. Railroad Co., 23 How. 1.

59. The appeal-bond must be taken and approved by any judge or justice authorized to allow the appeal or writ of error. Ib.

60. (Dec., 1863.) When a bond is given for appeal in a bill of foreclosure of mortgage, the condition of the bond being simply that the appellant shall pay costs and damages, it does not operate to stay a sale of mortgaged premises already decreed. Orchard v. Hughes, 1 Wall. 74.

61. (Dec., 1864.) A party allowed to enter an appealbond, nunc pro tunc, in a case where the court supposed it probable that his solicitors had been misled by a peculiar state of the record and mode of bringing up the questions from the court below. Brobst v. Brobst, 2 Wall. 96.

62. (Dec., 1866.) Where, through mistake or accident, no bond, or a defective bond, has been filed, this court will

not dismiss the appeal, if it is in all other respects quite regular, except on failure to comply with an order to give the proper security within such reasonable time as it may prescribe. Seymour v. Freer, 5 Wall. 822.

63. (Dec., 1867.) The question of sufficiency of an appealbond is to be determined in the first instance by the judge who signs the citation; but after the allowance of the appeal it becomes cognizable here. It is not required that the security be in any fixed proportion to the amount of the decree, but only that it be sufficient. Where a decree had been for a large sum ($310,752), security for less than double the amount was accepted by this court, and the appellants allowed to withdraw a bond given in such double sum. Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 6 Wall. 153.

64. (Dec., 1870.) Where there is nothing on the record to show to the court that the indemnity given by an appealbond is insufficient, the presumption is that it is sufficient. French v. Shoemaker, 12 Wall. 86.

65. (Dec., 1871.) Decree in admiralty in the District and Circuit Courts for a greater amount than the sum for which sureties were bound, on stipulations for a discharge of the vessel from the marshal's custody, reformed by this court so as not to exceed that sum. Steamer Webb, 14 Wall. 406.

66. (Oct., 1874.) The amount of a supersedeas bond, as well as the sufficiency of the security, are matters to be determined by the judge below, under the provisions of the twentyninth rule. Jerome v. McCarter, 21 Wall. 17.

67. The discretion thus exercised by him will not be interfered with by this court. Ib.

68. If, however, after the security has been accepted, the circumstances of the case, or of the parties, or of the sureties upon the bond, have changed, so that security which at the time it was taken was "good and sufficient," does not continue to be so, this court, on proper application, may so adjudge and order as justice may require. Ib.

69. (Oct., 1876.) The doctrine announced in Jerome v. Mc Carter (21 Wall. 17) affirmed, and applied to this case. Martin v. Hazard Powder Co., 3 Otto, 302.

70. (Oct., 1877.) As the appeal-bond in this case may be treated as an admiralty stipulation, all sums due the libellants for costs, and interest over and above the stipulation for costs, may be collected from the sureties on that bond. The Wanata, 5 Otto, 600.

71. (Oct., 1877.) The refusal of the Circuit Court to accept a supersedeas bond, when offered during the term at which the decree was rendered, does not take from a judge of that court, or a justice of this court, the power to approve one thereafter. Sage v. Railroad Co., 6 Otto, 712.

72. After the term at which such final decree was rendered, any justice of this court may, within the time prescribed by law, allow an appeal, and approve the bond which is to operate as a supersedeas. Ib.

73. (Oct., 1877.) The security required upon writs of error and appeals must be taken by the judge or justice. He cannot delegate that power to the clerk. O'Reilly v. Edrington, 6 Otto, 724.

74. (Oct., 1877.) The ruling in O'Reilly v. Edrington (supra, p. 724), that a judge or justice cannot delegate to the clerk the power to approve the security upon writs of error and appeals, approved, and applied to this case. tional Bank v. Omaha, 6 Otto, 737.

Na

75. (Oct., 1879.) Where an appeal has been taken to this court, the condition of the bond that the appellants "shall duly prosecute their said appeal with effect, and, moreover, pay the amount of costs and damages rendered and to be rendered in case the decree shall be affirmed in said court," meets all the requirements of sec. 1000 Rev. Stat. Gay v. Parpart, 11 Otto, 391.

76. In such a case the court will not entertain a motion by the appellee to affirm the decree appealed from. Ib.

77. (Oct., 1880.) A bond is not sufficient for the purposes of either an appeal to this court or a supersedeas, if the obligors are not thereby bound for the payment of costs, should the appellant fail to make his plea good. Seward v. Corneau, 12 Otto, 161.

78. (Oct., 1880.) Where no security having been taken at the time of entering an order allowing an appeal from a decree passed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia sitting in general term, the appellant, within the time limited by statute, filed with the clerk a bond with sureties, conditioned according to law, and approved by a judge of that court, by whom, on the same day, a citation was signed, -Held, that the power of the judge over the appeal and the security was thereupon, in the absence of fraud, exhausted, and that the control of the supersedeas, as well as of the appeal, was transferred to this court. Draper v. Davis, 12 Otto, 370.

In cases where appeals of the character mentioned in rule ninetythree, regulating equity practice, have already been taken, this court will, after the cause has been docketed, entertain an application for a supsension or modification of the injunction, based upon a statement of the facts affecting the application by a justice or judge who took part in the decision. All such applications must be printed and submitted on briefs. No oral arguments will be heard unless specially ordered.

Rule 31.-Form of Printed Records and Briefs.

All records and arguments printed for the use of the court must be in such form and size that they can be conveniently cut and bound so as to make an ordinary octavo volume.