sionary Soc., 124 U. S. 161, 31 L. ed. 352. Where it was suggested to the Supreme Court that a cause had been compromised, the debt, which the suit was brought to collect, paid, and a stipulation made that the plaintiff in error dismiss the suit; it was ordered that, unless the plaintiff in error show cause to the contrary on or before a motion day two weeks hence, the writ of error be dismissed, service of the order to show cause to be made on the counsel for the plaintiff in error, in Texas, by the clerk of the Supreme Court through the mail. Addington v. Burke, 125 U. S. 693, 31 L. ed. 853. In a case where appeals were being prosecuted by the order of the directors of a corporation, the Supreme Court refused to dismiss such appeals on the motion of parties who claimed to be holders of a majority of the stock of the corporation. Railway Co. v. Alling, 99 U. S. 463, 25 L. ed. 438. Where, on appeal by the city of New Orleans from a decree in favor of a railway company, the appellee moved for a dismissal of the appeal, on a stipulation therefor, signed by the city attorney pursuant to a compromise of the matter in dispute made with the city council; the Board of Liquidation of the city debt resisted the motion, claiming that, pending the appeal, authority over the subject-matter had been transferred from the city council to that board, and that the compromise was invalid; and also

moved for leave to prosecute the appeal in the name of the city,it was held that the question presented was too important to be settled summarily on a motion, and ordered that the cause and motions be continued to the next term, and that the appeal be then dismissed unless the Board of Liquidation should begin and prosecute, in some court of competent jurisdiction, without unnecessary delay, an appropriate proceeding to set aside the compromise made with the city council. City of New Orleans v. New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co., 108 U. S. 15, 27 L. ed. 635. In one case the Supreme Court refused, on motion of the attorney for the defendant in error, who claimed that he had a lien on the judgment for his costs, to docket a case which had been dismissed upon stipulation after a settlement between the parties. Platt v. Jerome, 19 How. 384, 15 L. ed. 623. In the Supreme Court no affidavits or other papers can be filed with such a stipulation. U. S. v. Griffith, 141 U. S. 212, 35 L. ed. 719.

2 U. S. v. Minn. & N. W. R. Co., 18 How. 241, 15 L. ed. 347; McGuire v. Commonwealth, 3 Wall. 382, 18 L. ed. 164. In such a case, he is not entitled as of right to have the order state that the dismissal is without prejudice, but it may state the fact that there has been no hearing upon the merits. Donallan v. Tannage Patent Co., C. C. A., 79 Fed. 385. Where it is

V.

the practice, as in the Third Circuit, that an appeal in admiralty opens the case to both parties for a new trial a respondent whose time to appeal has expired may prevent the appeal from being dismissed upon the motion of the appellant. The John Twohy, 255 U. S. 77. An appeal may be dismissed at the request of the appellant, for the purpose of enabling him to apply to the court of original jurisdiction for leave to open the decree for further proceedings. Greene United Shoe Mach. Co., C. C. A., 124 Fed. 961. An appeal has been dismissed without costs at the request of the court below, in order that an application to file a bill of review might be made thereto. Mossberg v. Nutter, C. C. A., 124 Fed. 966. Where during the pendency of an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Claims, the latter court grants a new trial, the appeal will be dismissed on motion of the appellant. U. S. v. Young, 94 U. S. 258, 24 L. ed. 153; Latham's Appeal, 9 Wall, 145, 19 L. ed. 771; Deming's Appeal, 10 Wall, 251, 19 L. ed. 893; U. S. v. Ayres, 9 Wall. 608, 19 L. ed. 625; U. S. v. Crusell, 12 Wall. 175, 20 L. ed. 384; Ex parte Russell, 13 Wall. 664, 20 L. ed. 632; Ex parte U. S., 16 Wall. 699, 21 L. ed. 507. An appeal will not usually be dis

missed on motion of the appellant without the consent of the respondent, if the appellant intends to bring a new appeal; but when the Attorney-General averred that other questions not on the record were material and should be considered, leave to dismiss the appeal was granted. U. S. v. Minn. & N. W. R. Co., 18 How. 241, 15 L. ed. 347.

3 McGuire v. Commonwealth, 3 Wall. 382, 18 L. ed. 164; U. S. v. Yates, 6 How. 605, 12 L. ed. 575. But see Farrar v. U. S., 3 Pet. 459, 7 L. ed. 741.

4 McGuire v. Commonwealth, 3 Wall. 382, 18 L. ed. 164; S. C. Rule 16; C. C. A. Rule 22.

§ 705c. 1 Talbot v. Mason, C. C. A., 125 Fed. 101. Courts have dismissed appeals from judgments entered by consent. Ballot v. U. S., 171 Fed. 404. Contra, Street Grading Dist. No. 60 v. Hagadorn, C. C. A., 186 Fed. 451. And where there had been a valid stipulation not to appeal, U. S. Consol. Seeded R. Co. v. Chaddock & Co., C. C. A., 173 Fed. 577. In the absence of a new employment, an attorney who appeared in the court below has no authority to stipulate that no writ of error or appeal shall be taken. Brown v. Arnold, 127 Fed. 387. Where, after the entry of an ex parte order appointing a temporary receiver, the defendant by agree

ment made by counsel consented to the retention of the receivership, he cannot review such order on an appeal taken from a subsequent decree in the cause. Haight & Freese Co. v. Weiss, C. C. A., 156 Fed. 328. The right to sue out a writ of error to a judgment granting insufficient relief is not waived by moving for the entry of judgment after the denial of a motion for a new trial. Butte & B. Consol. Min. Co. v. Montana Ore P. Co., C. C. A., 121 Fed. 524. 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. Alaska Un. Gold Min. Co. v. Muset, C. C. A., 114 Fed. 66.

2 Hoogendorn v. Daniel, C. C. A., 202 Fed. 431. A writ of error was dismissed where pending the same the plaintiff in error voluntarily paid so much of the judgment as to reduce it below the jurisdictional amount. Thorp v. Bonnifield, 177 U. S. 15, 44 L. ed. 652.

3 Josevig-Kennecott Copper Co. v. James F. Howarth Co., C. C. A.,

261 Fed. 567. A suit for specific performance of a contract to deliver stock.

4 Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172, 184, 12 L. ed. 655, 660; D. W. Standrod & Co. v. Utah ImplementVehicle Co., C. C. A., 223 Fed. 517. A party does not waive his writ of error or appeal by withdrawal from the registry of the court of a sum awarded to the appellant in a separable part of the decree, from which no appeal was taken, Snow v. Hazlewood, C. C. A., 179 Fed. 182; nor by compliance with an order of distribution, by collecting a judgment for costs and paying these into court, Robinson v. Hayes, C. C. A., 186 Fed. 295; nor by using a part of the money thus collected to pay the costs of the appeal, Ibid.

5 Carson Lumber Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., C. C. A., 209 Fed. 191. Where the Supreme Court of a State enjoined the collection of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia beyond a certain sum, it was held that the plaintiff was not estopped from prosecuting his writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States by the fact that he had accepted this sum. Embry v. Palmer, 107 U.

S. 3, 27 L. ed. 346; Spencer v. Babylon R. Co., C. C. A., 250 Fed. 24.

6 McSweeney Packing Co. v. Beshlin, C. C. A., 211 Fed. 922; Spencer v. Babylon R. Co., C. C. A., 250 Fed. 24. It was held otherwise when it was proved that the appellant believed that he was obligated to accept the money. Jones v. Pettingill, C. C. A., 245 Fed. 269.

7 Bankers' Trust Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 257 Fed. 789, taking the benefit of the extension of a receivership or of the consolidation of two suits.

8 Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 244 U. S. 78. It was held that a consent in the Circuit Court of Appeals to the direction of final judgment against the plaintiff in error instead of a new trial which had first been ordered was not a waiver and that such final judgment might be reviewed by writ of error.. Thomsen v. Cayser, 243 U. S. 66.

§ 705d. 1 Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 33 L. ed. 1016; Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, 12 L. ed. 1067; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419, 17 L. ed. 93; Am. Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333, 19 L. ed. 379; San Mateo County v. So. Pac. R. Co., 116 U. S. 138, 29 L. ed. 589; East Tenn., V. & G. R. Co. v. So. Tel. Co., 125 U. S. 695, 31 L. ed.

853; Buck's Stove & Range Co. v. Am. Federation of Labor, 219 U. S. 581, 55 L. ed. 345. Where the proceeding was brought solely to establish the right to an office and the term of the claimant had expired. Tennessee ex rel. Maloney v. Condon, 189 U. S. 64, 47 L. ed. 709.

Where the plaintiff in error sought to cancel the revocation of an annual license and the term thereof had expired. Security Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 200 U. S. 446, 50 L. ed. 545, reinstated because it appeared that the court was mistaken as to the facts, and judgment affirmed in s. c. 202 U. S. 246, 50 L. ed. 1013. But see Boise City Irr. & Land Co. v. Clark, C. C. A., 131 Fed. 415. Where a patent expired pending an appeal from an interlocutory decree for an injunction against its infringement, Thomson-Houston El. Co. v. Nassau El. R. Co., C. C. A., 119 Fed. 354; or from a final decree for a perpetual injunction to that effect without an accounting, Chapin v. Friedberger-Aaron Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 158 Fed. 409. The facts in relation to the expiration of the patent should be presented to the appellate court at or before the argument of the appeal. Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane Houston

Co., C. C. A., 259 Fed. 793; Certiorari granted, 250 U. S. 658, 40 Sup. Ct. 54, 63 L. ed. 1193. Otherwise, leave to file a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review so as to plead them may be denied or granted only upon terms. Westinghouse El. & Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Instrument Co., C. C. A., 138 Fed. 823, Supra §§ 231, 235. Where the complainant had waived the past damages and profits and had granted a license which the defendants accepted, Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Am. Graphaphone Co., C. C. A., 192 Fed. 1023, or a compulsory license had been obtained under the copyright act; G. Ricordi & Co. v. Columbia Graphophone Co., C. C. A., 263 Fed. 354. In a suit for the infringement of a patent, one of several appellants, plaintiffs below, cannot have the appeal dismissed, against the objection of the others, upon the ground that a State court, in a suit between the same parties, has enjoined the appellants from making any claim against the appellee for the use of the patented invention. Marsh v. Nichols, 120 U. S. 598, - 30 L. ed. 796. But see Kimball v. Kimball, 174 U. S. 158, 43 L. ed. 932.

Appeals from orders denying injunctions will be dismissed when the appellant has been given the relief which he sought. Myers v. Cheesman, C. C. A., 174 Fed. 783; Lewis Pub. Co. v. Wyman, C. C. A., 182 Fed. 13; North British & Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Rose, C. C. A., 228 Fed. 290; Clark v. Fairbanks, C. C. A., 249 Fed. 431. Where after a writ of error to a judgment upon an indictment a nolle prosequi was entered in the court below by order

of the President of the United States, and a copy thereof filed in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, this court on motion dismissed the case. U. S. v. Phillips, 6 Pet. 776, 8 L. ed. 578. Where, in an action on county bonds, subsequently to the judgment the county settled with the bondholders by giving them new bonds bearing a less rate of interest and destroying the old bonds, the writ of error was dismissed. Dakota County v. Glidden, 113 U. S. 222, 28 L. ed. 981. Where, pending an appeal from a decree granting or denying an injunction against the collection of a tax, the taxes have been voluntarily paid, Little V. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 33 L. ed. 1016; or deposited in a bank to the credit of the State under a statute which makes such a deposit the equivalent of payment, California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, 37 L. ed. 747; or collected by compulsory process, Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696, 35 L. ed. 906. Similarly, the appeal will be dismissed where the plaintiff in error had, in order to prevent a forfeiture, complied with the condition imposed by the judgment, and thus relieved itself from the forfeiture, therein decreed, American Book Co. v. Kansas, 193 U. S. 49, 48 L. ed. 613. Where the whole controversy except the question of costs has been settled, the appeal will be dismissed. Washington M. Co. v. District of Columbia, 137 U. S. 62, 34 L. ed. 572; Wingert v. First Nat. Bank of Hagerstown, 223 U. S. 670, 56 L. ed. 605; Arnold v. Woodsey, C. C. A., 54 Fed. 268; Lisman v. Knickerbocker Tr. Co., C. C. A., 211 Fed. 413; Clark