are not res adjudicata in another suit, when the first case has been dismissed for want of prosecution.21 Where the mandate of the appellate court on the original appeal was that the damages be divided, and the respondent then claimed no damages, he cannot make such claim for the first time in the appellate court on a second appeal.22 A motion to extend the time for returning an appeal previously granted, and an order granting such motion, cannot be considered as a second appeal.23 After a dismissal of one appeal no second appeal can be docketed until after an allowance thereof.24 Proceedings by representatives of a deceased appellant to become parties to the appeal do not constitute a new appeal.25 A second writ of error taken after the death of the original plaintiff in error is void; the action must first be revived in the court below, and the writ of error must then issue in the name of the representative of the original plaintiff in error.26 The court of review may award a supersedeas upon a second writ of error 27 or appeal 28 but not ordinarily in a case where a prior writ of error has been dismissed, unless it appears that the first writ of error was accompanied by a supersedeas duly obtained in the court below, and perhaps not then unless it appears that the dismissal of the first writ was not due to the neglect or fault of the plaintiff in error.29 perpetual injunction upon final hearing should be denied or granted in accordance with such decision unless the testimony is substantially changed, Puritan Cordage Mills v. Sampson Cordage Works, C. C. A., 241 Fed. 671; but an affirmance of such an interlocutory decree which also directs a reference for an accounting does not prevent the District Court from a modification thereof giving directions to the master as to the principles upon which he shall proceed. A. D. Howe Mach. Co. v. Dayton, C. C. A., 210 Fed. 801. 21 Gilbert v. American Surety Co., C. C. A., 61 L.R.A. 253, 121 Fed. 499; supra, § 186. 22 The Sapphire, 18 Wall. 51, 21 L. ed. 814. 23 U. S. v. Curry, 6 How. 106, 12 L. ed. 363. 24 Rogers v. Law, 21 How. 526, 18 L. ed. 835. 25 Edmonson V. Bloomshire, 7 Wall. 306, 19 L. ed. 91. 26 McClane v. Boon, 6 Wall. 244, 98 L. ed. 835. 27 Hardeman v. Anderson, 4 How. 640, 11 L. ed. 1138. 28 Southern Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Carey, 117 Fed. 325, 329. 29 Hagan v. Ross, 11 How. 294, 13 L. ed. 702; Hardeman v. Anderson, 4 How. 640, 11 L. ed. 1138. APPENDIX I FORMS. The following forms have been selected and copied almost verbatim from precedents which have been actually used in the court, many of them in cases in which the author was counsel. Some have been approved by the most distinguished lawyers in the United States. The author, however, disclaims responsibility for their correctness. The alterations of the originals are marked in brackets. FORMS IN CIVIL CASES AT COMMON LAW AND IN EQUITY. FORMS IN EQUITY FORM I.-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL IN SUPREME Now comes the State of Rhode Island, by its Attorney General, Herbert A. Rice, and moves the court for leave to file the bill of complaint herewith exhibited, in a suit between the State of Rhode Island and citizens of other States and arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, for the purpose of enjoyning the defendants from enforcing within the State of Rhode Island such titles and sections of an Act of Congress, commonly called the Volstead Act, as apply and are designed to give effect to the so-called Eighteenth Amendment; and that proper process may issue thereon, notifying the defendants of the filing of said bill and that they appear in answer thereto and defend the same.1 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, FORM II-ORIGINAL BILL IN EQUITY IN SUPREME COURT. To the Honorable the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: The State of Rhode Island, complainant, brings this bill of complaint, for itself and on behalf of the people of said State, against the defendants above named and respectfully shows unto this Honorable Court: I. That the State of Rhode Island is one of the States of the United States and that the defendants, A. Mitchell Palmer, is a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the Attorney General of the United States, and Daniel C. Roper, is a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue. II. That this is a suit in equity of a civil nature by the State of Rhode Island against citizens of other States of the United States, and arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, especially under Article V of the Constitution and Article X of the Amendments to the Constitution, and is for the purpose of enjoining the defendants from enforcing within the State of Rhode Island such titles and sections of an Act of Congress, commonly called the Volstead Act, as apply and are designed to give effect to the so-called Eighteenth Amendment. This suit is instituted pursuant to a resolution of the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island. (Exhibit A.) 1 For Form of Subpoena ad Respondendum, see supra. § 161. III. And in support of its bill complainant alleges: (1) That as a colony, Rhode Island was settled by subjects of the British Crown in 1636, and that said colonists from the beginning exerIcised and enjoyed the inherent right of self-government, in the management and control of their own affairs as a community and in the establishment of their civil institutions for the protection of the rights and liberties of the individual under and in accordance with the common law so far as the same was applicable to their new conditions and circumstances. (2) That on March 14, 1643-4, Robert Earl of Warwick, constituted and ordained by an Ordinance of the Lords and Commons, "Governor in Chief, and Lord High Admiral of all those Islands and other Plantations inhabited or planted by, or belonging to any His Majesty the King of England's Subjects, (or which hereafter may be inhabited and planted by, or belonging to them) within the Bounds, and upon the Coasts of America," and the Commissioners appointed in Aid and Assistance of the said Earl, did, by the authority of the aforesaid Ordinance of the Lords and Commons, "give, grant, and confirm, to the aforesaid Inhabitants of the Towns of Providence, Portsmouth, and Newport, a free and absolute Charter of Incorporation, to be known by the Name of the Incorporation of Providence Plantations, in the Narraganset-Bay, in New England,-Together with full Power and Authority to rule themselves, and such others as shall hereafter inhabit within any part of the said Tract of land, by such a Form of Civil Government, as by voluntary consent of all, or the greater Part of them, they shall find most suitable to their Estate and Condition; and, for that End, to make and ordain such Civil Laws and Constitutions, and to inflict such punishments upon Transgressors, and for Execution thereof, so to place, and displace Officers of Justice, as they, or the greatest Part of them, shall by free Consent agree unto. Provided nevertheless, that the said Laws, Constitutions, and Punishments, for the Civil Government of the said Plantations, be conformable to the Laws of England, so far as the Nature and Constitution of the place will admit.'' .(Exhibit B.) And the General Assembly first organized under said Warwick patent, declared that the forme of Government established in Providence Plantations is Democraticall; that is to say, a Government held by ye free and voluntarie consent of all, or the greater parte of the free Inhabitants.'' (Exhibit C.) (3) That on July 8, 1663, by the Charter granted by King Charles II, the free inhabitants of said Colony were created "a body corporate and politic, in fact and name, by the name of the Governor and Company of the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New England, in America," with perpetual succession; and that under said Charter the said Governor and Company and their successors were authorized and empowered "from time to time, to make, ordain, constitute or repeal, such laws, statutes, orders and ordinances, forms and ceremonies of government and magistracy, as to them shall seem meet, for the good and welfare of the said Company, and for the government and ordering of the lands and hereditaments, hereinafter mentioned to be granted, and of the people that do, or at any time hereafter shall, inhabit or be within the same; so as such laws, ordinances and constitutions, so made, be not contrary and repugnant unto, but as near as may be, agreeable to the laws of this our realm of England, considering the nature and constitution of the place and people there." (Poore's Constitutions, vol. 2, pg. 1595.) That the colonists of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, under the liberal provisions of said Charter, possessed, exercised and enjoyed full powers of legislation and self-government in all matters and concerns relating to the internal affairs of said Colony, and so continued in their rights under said Charter and as loyal subjects of the British Crown for more than one hundred years. (4) That in consequence of the assertion by the colonists of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations that they of right possessed full legislative powers in all matters and concerns relating to the internal affairs of said Colony, and the denial thereof by Great Britain, the said colonists severed their connection with Great Britain and abrogated their allegiance to the British Crown; and on the 4th day of May, 1776, the General Assembly of the Colony of Rhode Island passed "An Act repealing an act, entitled 'An act for the more effectually securing to His Majesty, the allegiance of his subjects, in this his colony and dominion of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations' "'; wherein it provided "that in all commissions for officers, civil and military; and in all writs and processes in law, whether original, judicial or executory, civil or criminal, wherever the name and authority of the said King (George III) is made use of, the same shall be omitted; and in the room thereof, the name and authority of the Governor and Company of this colony, shall be substituted, in the following words, to wit: 'The Governor and Company of the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,' '' (Exhibit D); and thereupon the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations became a free, independent and sovereign State, and succeeded to those public rights, belonging by prerogative to the British Crown or exercised by Parliament, that in any way related or pertained to the government and . affairs of said State. (5) That the State of Rhode Island maintained its right to exercise complete legislative powers over its internal affairs and its existence as a free, independent and sovereign State by force of arms, and at the conclusion of war its freedom and independence was acknowledged by Great Britain in the Treaty of Peace signed at Paris, September 3, 1783. That in March, 1781, said State united with the other American States in a league of friendship for the "security of their liberties' under the Articles of Confederation; that under said Articles the State of Rhode Island did not yield or surrender or delegate any legislative power over its internal affairs and civil institutions, and it was expressly provided by Article II of said Articles of Confederation that "each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and |