to the rejection of evidence, the assignment of errors shall quote the full substance of the evidence admitted or rejected. When the error alleged is to the charge of the court, the assignment of errors shall set out the part referred to totidem verbis, whether it be in instructions given or in instructions refused. Such assignment of errors shall form part of the transcript of the record, and be printed with it. When this is not done, counsel will not be heard, except at the request of the court; and errors not assigned according to this rule will be disregarded, but the court, at its option, may notice a plain error not assigned." The rules of the Circuit Court of Appeals in this Stone v. Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 6 Garrett v. Pope Motor Car Co., C. C. A., 168 Fed. 905; Burchett v. U. S., C. C. A., 194 Fed. 821; Commercial T. & S. Bank v. Busch-Grace Produce Co., C. C. A., 228 Fed. 300; Vandeventer v. Traders' Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 241 Fed. 584; Graboyes v. United States, C. C. A., 250 Fed. 93. Where an assignment of error included objections to several distinct instructions of the court it was disregarded, although separate exceptions were taken to each instruction. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Mulligan, C. C. A., 67 Fed. 569. 7 C. C. A., Rule 11. To the same effect is s. c., Rule 21, subd. 4. Clinton E. Warden Co. V. California F. S. Co., C. C. A., 102 Fed. 334; George v. Wallace, C. C. A., 135 Fed. 286; Jones v. U. S. ex rel. Tompkins County Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 135 Fed. 518; Moline Trust & Sav. Bank v. Wylie, C. C. A., 149 Fed. 734; Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Gardner, C. C. A., 162 Fed. 114, cited. For the practice in the Court of Customs Appeals, see Rule 5, Ct. of Customs Appeals. By the Act of Feb'y 26, 1919, 40 St. at L. 1181, upon appeals and writ of error, "In any case civil or criminal, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the entire record be fore the court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not effect the substantial rights of the party. See supra, § 536a; infra, §§ 711g, 711j, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U. S., 232 U. S. 199. The court of review will, without mention thereof in the assignment of errors, consider an error that is jurisdictional, Rogers v. Penobscot Min. Co., C. C. A., 154 Fed. 606; Morrison v. Burnette, C. C. A., 154 Fed. 617; Toledo Newspaper Co. v. U. S., C. C. A., 237 Fed. 986. In Lowenstein v. Levy, C. C. A., 212 Fed. 383, it was so held although the defect might have been waived, when no waiver appeared on the record. Mullins Lumber Co. v. Williamson & Brown Land & L. Co., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 232. Where the objection is based upon a fraudulent averment as to the amount of damages this must clearly appear upon the record. An error that lies at the threshold of the case and shows that the plaintiff below had no cause of action, A. Santaella & Co. v. Otto F. Lange Co., C. C. A., 155 Fed. 719; U. S. v. Bernays, C. C. A., 158 Fed. 792; but see Behn Meyer & Co. v. Campbell & Go Tauco, 205 U. S. 403, 51 L. ed. 857; or a fundamental error, such as that the special findings of fact are insufficient to support the judgment, Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Barrett, C. C. A., 190 Fed. 118. Contra, Wm. Edwards Co. v. La Dow, C. C. A., 230 Fed. 378, 384. For cases where the courts took notice of errors that were not assigned, see Columbia Heights Realty Co. v. Rudolph, 217 U. S. 547, 54 L. ed. 877; Briscoe v. Dist. of Columbia, 221 U. S. 547, 55 L. ed. 848; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Rankin, C. C. A., 162 Fed. 103; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. McCune, C. C. A., 174 Fed. 991; City of Memphis v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., C. C. A., 183 Fed. 529; Central Imp. Co. v. Cambria Steel Co., C. C. A., 201 Fed. 811; White v. U. S., C. C. A., 202 Fed. 501; Hultberg v. Anderson, C. C. A., 203 Fed. 853; Bassett v. Utah Copper Co., C. C. A., 219 Fed. 811; Pennsylvania Co. v. Sheeley, C. C. A., 221 Fed. 901; Hall v. Butler, C. C. A., 224 Fed. 709; Ohio Motor Car Co. v. Eiseman Magneto Co., C. C. A., 230 Fed. 370; Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland, C. C. A., 239 Fed. 1; Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Hull, C. C. A., 239 Fed. 26; Swiss Bankverein v. Zimmerman, C. C. A., 240 Fed. 87; Bandy v. U. S., C. C. A., 245 Fed. 98; Jones v. Pettingill, C. C. A., 245 Fed. 269. That a contract was against public policy, Grafton v. Meikleham, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 737, certiorari denied, Letterman v. U. S., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 940; Meikleham v. Grafton, 246 U. S. 665, 38 Sup. Ct. 334, 62 L. ed. 929; Central Stamping Co. v. M'Keon, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 8; Hodges v. Erie R. Co., C. C. A., 257 Fed. 495, (a failure to permit an amendment to a pleading after a demurrer had been sustained); but see, Winter v. Bostwick, C. C. A., 212 Fed. 884. Upon a writ of error in a criminal case, the Supreme Court considered an objection that a cruel and unusual punishment was imposed, although this was not specified in the assignments of error. Weems v. U. S., 217 U. S. 349, 54 L. ed. 793. For recent cases where errors not assigned were not considered, see Myers v. U. S., C. C. A., 223 Fed. 919.; Brennan v. Tillinghast, C. C. A., 201 Fed. 609; Re Federal Contracting Co., 212 Fed. respect apply to appeals in bankruptcy. The assignment of errors cannot supply an omitted exception. A party who has not appealed nor sued out a writ of error cannot assign crosserrors. 10 An error may be waived after its assignment.11 692, (action upon a petition of intervention); Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Porter, C. C. A., 228 Fed. 188; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Orchard Land & Timber Co., C. C. A., 240 Fed. 364; Hart v. Adair, C. C. A., 244 Fed. 897; Davis v. Carnegie Steel Co., C. C. A., 244 Fed. 931; Painter v. Union Trust Co., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 240; Parish v. U. S., C. C. A., 247 Fed. 40; Fall v. Bennett, C. C. A., 248 Fed. 491; Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Sloan, C. C. A., 250 Fed. 712; Wight v. Washoe County Bank, C. C. A., 251 Fed. 819; F. W. Rauskolb Co. v. Anthony Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 253 Fed. 650; Louie Share Gan v. White, C. C. A., 258 Fed. 798; Individual Drinking Cup Co. v. Public Service Cup Corporation, 263 Fed. 98. When the court of review concludes to notice a manifest error not specified in accordance with the rules, there is no implication that it has undertaken the task of going through the record and examining other errors not specified. CocoCola Co. v. Moore, C. C. A., 256 Fed. 640. 8 Flickinger v. First Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 145 Fed. 162. 9 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. McClish, C. C. A., 115 Fed. 268; Smith v. Hopkins, C. C. A., 120 Fed. 921; Vernon v. U. S., C. C. A., 146 Fed. 121; Fernwood & G. R. Co. v. Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Co., C. C. A., 213 Fed. 33; McBride v. Neal, C. C. A., 214 Fed. 966; Itow v. U. S., C. C. A., 223 Fed. 25; Pennsylvania v. Fanger, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 851; Mound Coal Co..v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 233 Fed. 913; May v. U. S., C. C. A., 236 Fed. 495; Proctor Coal Co. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., C. C. A., 236 Fed. 910; Maryland Casualty Co. of Baltimore, Md., v. Orchard Land & Timber Co., C. C. A., 240 Fed. 364; Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Sloan, C. C. A., 250 Fed. 712; Roberts Cone Mfg. Co. V. Bruckman, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 957; Goldfarb v. Keener, C. C. A., 263 Fed. 350. An assignment of error to a charge will not be considered unless duly taken at the trial. Tinsman v. F. R. Patch Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 101 Fed. 373; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State of Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 53 L. ed. 431; Ireton v. Pennsylvania Co., C. C. A., 185 Fed. 84; Carlisle v. U. S., C. C. A., 194 Fed. 827. A writ of error is a sufficient exception to a judgment. Fellman v. Royal Ins. Co., C. C. A., 185 Fed. 689. 10 Landram v. Jordan, 203 U. S. 56, 51 L. ed. 88; Southern Pine Co. v. Ward, 208 U. S. 126, 52 L. ed. 420; Denver v. Denver Union Water Co., 246 U. S. 178; U. S. v. Goodrich, C. C. A., 54 Fed. 21; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Colorado Eastern Ry. Co., C. C. A., 54 Fed. 22; Guarantee Co. of North American v. Phenix Ins. Co., C. C. A., 124 Fed. 170; Rogers v. Penobscot Min. Co., C. C. A., 154 Fed. 606; Texas Co. v. Central Fuel Oil Co., C. C. A., 194 Fed. 1. 11 Taylor v. Easton, C. C. A., 180 Fed. 363. § 702. Security on writ of error or appeal. The Revised Statutes provide that every judge or justice signing a citation on any writ of error or appeal shall, except in cases brought up by the United States or by direction of any department of the government, in which case none is required, take good and sufficient security that the plaintiff in error shall prosecute his writ or appeal to effect, and if he fail to make his plea good shall answer all costs. This provision is merely directory, and an omission to take a bond does not avoid the writ of error or appeal; 2 but on a motion to dismiss the case on that ground an opportunity to file a bond will be allowed the plaintiff in error,3 or appellant, even after his time to appeal or sue out a new writ of error has expired; except in the case of gross laches.5 But an appeal is not perfected until the bond is approved and filed. The judge cannot delegate the approval of the bond to the § 702. 1 U. S. R. S., §§ 1000, 1012. This has been held to include liability for the costs of the court of original jurisdiction as well as for those of the trial court. Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 177 Fed. 604; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Expanded Metal Co., C. C. A., 183 Fed. 568; Young v. Daley, 185 Fed. 209. Trustees in bankruptcy are excepted. 30 St. at L. 544, 554, § 25. Where, before the signature of the citation, another judge has approved the bond, the signature of the citation is equivalent to a new approval thereof. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chicago & N. P. R. Co., C. C. A., 73 Fed. 314. The bond is not defective for failing to specify the term at which the decree appealed from was rendered. New Orleans Ins. Co. v. Albro Co., 112 U. S. 506, 28 L. ed. 809. The bond rendered need not be for the whole amount of the judgment unless a supersedeas is asked for. Wheeling Br. & T. R. Co. v. Cochran, C. C. A., 68 Fed. 141; infra, § 703. 2 Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447, 18 L. ed. 377; Seymour v. Freer, 5 Wall. 822, 18 L. ed. 564; Edmonson v. Bloomshire, 7 Wall. 306, 311, 19 L. ed. 91, 92. 3 Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 477, 18 L. ed. 377; Seymour v. Freer, 5 Wall. 822, 18 L. ed. 564; Edmonson v. Bloomshire, 7 Wall. 306, 311, 19 L. ed. 91, 92; Stewart v. Masterson, 124 U. S. 493, 31 L. ed. 507; Schenck v. Diamond Match Co., C. C. A., 73 Fed. 22; Herr v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., C. C. A., 174 Fed. 938. The plaintiff in error may be allowed to file his bond nunc pro tunc Shepherd v. Pepper, 133 U. S. 626, 644, 33 L. ed. 706, 713. 4 Wickelman v. A. B. Dick Co., C. C. A., 85 Fed. 851; Walker v. Houghteling, C. C. A., 104 Fed. 513; Corcoran v. Kostrometinoff, C. C. A., 164 Fed. 685. 5 Beardsley v. Arkansas & L. Ry. Co., 158 U. S. 123, 39 L. ed. 919. 6 Ibid. clerk, nor to a commissioner. 8 The judge may approve the bond out of court.9 His failure to approve the bond is an irregularity that does not make the appeal void.10 All the appellants or plaintiffs in error need not join in the bond.11 The bond must be payable to the defendants in error or appellees.12 No security is required upon a writ of error to the judgment of conviction of a crime in a court of the United States.18 No bond is required on a writ of error or appeal by direction of the Comptroller of the Currency in a suit against a receiver of a national bank.14 An error in the names of the parties,15 or an omission of some who should be obligees,16 or an error in the 7 O'Reilly v. Edrington, 96 Ú. S. 724, 24 L. ed. 659; National Bank v. Omaha, 96 U. S. 737, 24 L. ed. 881; Freeman v. Clay, C. C. A., 48 Fed. 849. In such a case, leave to file a new bond will usually be given. Chicago Dollar Director Co. v. Chicago D. Co., C. C. A., 65 Fed. 463. 8 Haskins v. St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co., 109 U. S. 106, 27 L. ed. 873. 9 Hudgins v. Hemp, 18 How. 530, 15 L. ed. 511. A corporation will not be accepted as a surety when there is doubt as to its power under its charter so to act. Black V. Black, 53 Fed. 985. 10 Amadeo v. No. Assurance Co., 201 U. S. 194, 50 L. ed. 722. 11 Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238, 11 L. ed. 251. The bond is. not defective because the court refused to entertain a motion for the withdrawal of its approval to a surety after a month's delay. tional Harrow Co. v. Hench, 81 Fed. 1005. Na 12 Bigler v. Waller, 12 Wall. 142; Swan v. Hill, 155 U. S. 394. An omission in this respect may be cured by amendment in the appellate court. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chicago & N. P. R. Co., C. C. A., 73 Fed. 314. Gilbert v. Hopkins, C. C. A., 198 Fed. 849. A writ is not defective because other parties are also joined as obligees. Hill v. Chicago & E. Ry. Co., 129 U. S. 170, 32 L. ed. 651. If the sole payee is a person not a defendant in error or appellee, the appeal will be dismissed. Davenport v. Fletcher, 16 How. 142, 14 L. ed. 879. Where the proceeding is in the name of a State at the relation of an individual, the bond may be payable in the alternative to either the State or the relator, and either may enforce it. Spalding v. People, 2 How. 66, 11 L. ed. 181. 13 25 St. at L., ch. 113, § 6, P. 656; Re Claasen, 140 U. S. 200, 208, 35 L. ed. 409, 412. See 20 St. at L., ch. 176, § 2, p. 354. 14 Pacific Bank v. Mixter, 114 U. S. 463, 29 L. ed. 221; Robinson v. Southern Bank, 94 Fed. 22. A bond for costs was required upon an appeal by an individual to the Circuit Court from a ruling of the Board of General Appraisers. In re Certain Merchandise, 64 Fed. 576. 15 Knox County v. U. S., 131 U. S. elxvi, 25 L. ed. 191. 16 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chicago & N. P. R. Co., C. C. A., 73 |