States Court rooms, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, I shall ask the Hon. CHARLES M. HOUGH, United States District Judge, to approve said statement; and you and each of you are hereby requested to serve upon me, on or before the 19th day of March, 1915, your objections and proposed amendments, if any, to said statement.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the appellant designates the following as the portions of the record in this cause to be incorporated into the transcript on his appeal: 1. Bill of complaint, verified September 22, 1913. 2. Answer of the defendant, Ball, omitting the counterclaims. 3. Statement that the answers of the defendant General Realty & Mortgage Company, and O'Donohue are identical with the answer of the defendant, Ball, except as to the name of the defendant in each case. 4. Answer of the defendant, Corn. 5. Answer of the defendant, Dowling. 6. Answer of the defendant, Barlow. 7. Statement of the evidence approved pursuant to Rule LXXV. 8. Opinion of the Hon. CHARLES M. HOUGH, United States District Judge, dated December 8, 1914. 9. Decree filed January 11, 1915. 10. Summons and severance. 11. Petition of appeal. 12. Assignments of error. 13. Order allowing appeal. 14. Citation. Dated, New York, March 12, 1915.

Yours, etc.,

WILLIAM M. CHADBOURNE,

Solicitor for Silas W. Howland, as Receiver of Improved Property Holding Company of New York.

Office and Post Office Address,

32 Liberty Street,

Borough of Manhattan,
New York City.

TO ROGER FOSTER, Esq.,

Solicitor for Defendant Dowling,

55 Liberty Street,

New York City.

[and to the other attorneys for the respondents and to the clerk of the District Court.]

APPELLATE FORM XX.-ORDER AS TO CONTENTS OF RETURN TO WRIT OF ERROR.

[Judgment reversed, Simons v. Cromwell, 262 Fed. 680.]

[Title.]

After hearing Roger Foster, Esq., on behalf of the plaintiff in support of a motion that the Trial Judge determine how much of the record should be included in the return to the writ of error to review the judgment herein, and Philip L. Miller, Esq., on behalf of the defendants, in partial opposition thereto, on motion of Roger Foster, plaintiff's attorney, it is hereby

ORDERED that said return shall contain copies of the following papers, and no others; in addition to writ of error, assignment of errors and citation:

Summons; return by Marshal of service of same; appearance of defendant Cromwell; appearance of defendant Cramer; amended complaint; amended answer of defendant Cramer to amended complaint; amended answer of defendant Cromwell to amended complaint; copy opinion of Supreme Court; order of Hough, J., thereupon; extract from clerk's minutes; order extending time to serve bill of exceptions as resettled; judg ment; bill of exceptions; such stipulations and clerk's certificate as may be obtained, and upon the Court's own motion, it is further

ORDERED that the postscript to the letter by the defendant to plaintiff's husband marked Exhibit 33 for Identification, be added to the bill of exceptions herein when the same is printed provided that a copy thereof be furnished by defendants' attorneys to the plaintiff's attorney within three days after the entry of this order.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND,

United States District Judge.

APPELLATE FORM XXI.-STIPULATION AUTHORIZING
CERTIFICATE TO RETURN.

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto that the record herein numbered from pages 1 to 225, inclusive, contains all of the records, papers, and documents in this action that are necessary and material upon the review of this judgment by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and that the same may be certified by the Clerk of the United States District Court as the complete return herein which shall constitute full compliance with the requirements of the writ of error herein.

Dated, New York, May 3d, 1919.

ROGER FOSTER,

Attorney for Plaintiff in Error.

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL,

Attorneys for William Nelson Cromwell,
Defendant in Error.

EDGAR T. BRACKETT,

Attorney for Louis H. Cramer, Defendant

in Error.

APPELLATE FORM XXII.-CERTIFICATE BY CLERK TO

TRANSCRIPT.

Southern District of New York.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

}

88.

I, Alexander Gilchrist, Jr., Clerk of the [District] Court of the United States of America, for the Southern District of New York, in the Second Circuit, by virtue of the foregoing Writ of Error, and in obedience thereto, do hereby certify, that the following pages, numbered from to inclusive, contain a true and complete transcript of the record and proceedings had in said Court in the cause of plaintiff in error, against

defendant in error, as the same remain of record and

on file in said office. In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the said Court to be hereunto affixed, at the City of New York, in the Southern District of New York, in the Second Circuit, this 11th day September, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and fifteenth.

[Seal of U. S. [District] Court.] ALEXANDER GILCHRIST, JR., Clerk.

APPELLATE FORM XXIII.-MEMORANDUM TO BE INSERTED IN
A COMMON LAW CASE AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 7 OF
RULE 14 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

Conditioned for costs and damages (or for costs).

Note: Similar memorandum mutatis mutandis to be used in admiralty and

equity cases.

The petition for writ of error or appeal, the order granting writ of error

or appeal, the writ of error, the appeal bond, the citation, the return of service or waiver of service should not be copied into the record, but the originals thereof shall be sent up and accompany the transcript of the record.

In transcribing bills of exceptions into the record in cases at law, clerks will carefully inspect such bills of exceptions and wherever the words "here insert" occur, the paper or matter called for should be bodily incorporated into the record at that place.

In making up records in admiralty cases the following should be omitted (see rule 52 of the Supreme Court, in admiralty):

1. The continuances.

2. All motions, rules and orders not excepted to which are merely preparatory for trial.

3. The commissions to take depositions, notices therefor, their captions, and certificates of their being sworn to, unless some exception to a deposition in the district court was founded on some one or more. of these; in which case, so much of either of them as may be involved in the exception shall be set out. In all other cases it shall be sufficient to give the name of the witness and to copy the interrogatories and answers, and to state the name of the commissioner, and the place where and the date when the deposition was sworn to; and, in copying all depositions taken on interrogatories, the answer shall be inserted immediately following the question.

APPELLATE FORM XXIV.-ORDER FOR APPEARANCE IN SUPREME COURT.

File No.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

No.

October Term, 19

VS.

The Clerk will enter my appearance as Counsel for the

(Name)

(P. O. Address)

Note.-Must be signed by a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court United States. Individual and not firm names must be signed.

APPELLATE FORM XXV.-MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL.

In the Supreme Court of the United States.

PERE ALFREDO LUIS BAGLIN, Superior-General)

of the Order of Carthusian Monks, for Him

self and all other Members of said Order. No. 614. October Complainant Appellant,

against

CUSENIER COMPANY, Respondent.

Term, 1908.

And now comes the Cusenier Company, the respondent above named, by A. L. Pincoffs and Roger Foster, its counsel, and moves to dismiss, with costs, the appeal taken herein by the above-named Pere Alfredo Luis Baglin, Superior-General of the Order of Carthusian Monks, for Himself and all other Members of said Order, upon the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction of the same, and because the said appeal is otherwise informal, irregular and insufficient, for the reason that the decree which the said appeal seeks to bring up for review is not a final decree, and for other reasons apparent upon the face of said papers.

In the Supreme Court of the United States.

PERE ALFREDO LUIS BAGLIN, Superior-General) of the Order of Carthusian Monks, for Him

self and all other Members of said Order. No. 614.

October

Term, 1908.

Please take notice that upon the affidavit of Jules Aubry, hereto annexed, sworn to on the 27th day of February, 1909, and upon the copy of the bill in equity in the [District] Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, in the suit above entitled, and the decree of said Court upon said bill in equity, and upon the order and mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, upon the appeal from said decree, and the order thereupon of said [District] Court, copies of which are hereto annexed, and upon all the papers and proceedings herein, and upon the printed brief, a copy of which is herewith served upon you, we shall on Monday, the 22d day of March, 1909, and if motions are not then heard, at the next succeeding motion day of this Court, make and submit to the Supreme Court of the United States, at a stated term thereof, to be held in the Capitol, in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, the motion, a copy of which is hereto annexed; and that we shall also then and there move said Court for an order dismissing the appeal herein for want of jurisdiction, and because the same is otherwise irregular, informal and insufficient, for the reason that the decree which the