12 FEDERAL nnronrn. _
ness of the conclusion in view of the sinuosities of our American law
in relation to the implied appellate supersedeas, that this court has
the power, under the authority of Revised Statutes, § 954, to direct
the amendment of a writ of error or appeal-bond, and to permit the
amendment asked for here, as a part of the proceedings of this court.
I have not the least doubt it could be done in England, particularly
in chancery; but, through the influence of statutes and the distorted
growth of an American notion that an appeal transfers a case bodily
into the appellate court, and strips the court below of all power over
the record and the case, I am not certain that the power could be
sustained here, though there is no adjudication of the supreme court
of the United States against it, whatever may be said of expressions
V to be found in the opinions. Experimentally, I will permit the
amendment pro forma, and not undertake to justify it now, since I
Hnd it unnecessary, but will cite in a note to this opinion some au-
thorities which seem to sustain it. It is not a practical question of
much value in a situation precisely like this, because the case of
Seward v. Comeau, 102 U. S. 161, and other cases like it, furnish a
complete remedy in the supreme court itself for the correction of the
mistake made; and, if the position first assumed in this opinion be
correct, the receiver would be continued independently of the stat-
A utory supersedeas, and that would give the defendants relief until the
supreme court could act to correct the bond.
Motions of plaintiffs denied. Motion of defendants granted.
Dmonnn.
Because it appears to the court that the appeal-bond Bled herein on the
twenty-eighth day of September A. D. 1885, was intended, by the obligors,
the court, and the judge approving the bond, to operate as a supersedcas,
but by some mistake the words "and damages" were unintentionally omitted
from the condition thereof, and for other satisfactory reasons to the court
appearing. the motion of the plaintiffs to vacate the order of April 26, 1886,
recalling the writ of possession issued by the clerk, and to now proceed
with the execution of the final decree of August 1, 1885, by such orders as
may be necessary to discharge the receiver, and deliver possession of the
property in dispute to the plaintiffs pending the appeal of the defendants
herein, is denied. And for the same reasons, on motion of defendants,
· they are permitted to amend the said bond, by interlining the words so un-
intentionally omitted in the place left for them in the printed blank upon
which the said bond was executed, if the surety in the bond shall in writ-
ing indorse thereon his consent thereto; and it is ordered that the bond shall
then operate as if said words had originally been inserted therein. And
thereupon the said M. L. Bacon, surety as aforesaid in the said bond, appeared
in open court. and declined to consent to the change in the bond as above
allowed; and thereupon defendants moved the court to be allowed to lile an-
other bond, conditioned as required by law to operate as a sapersedeas, where-
upon they tendered a bond with J. H. Malone and W. H. Robinson as sureties,
conditioned as therein expressed, which said bond is hereby accepted and ap-
proved; and it is ordered that. according to the tenor and effect thereof as es-
tablished by law and by the consent of said sureties and the defendants herein,
‘ it shall be taken, and in all respects operate, to supersede the said final decree