United Merthyr Co., L. R. 15 Eq. 46. 98 236 U. S. v. Matthews (D. C.) 68 Fed. 880. 335 U. S. v. May, 26 Fed. Cas. 1,224. .183, 184 U. S. v. Moss, 6 How. 30, 12 L. Ed. 331. 565 955 332 U. S. v. Anonymous, 122 Fed. 766. U. S. v. Ass'n, 53 Fed. 440; 7 C. C. A. 15, 69, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 97, 99, 58 Fed. 58, 65, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73, 93, 95, 24 L. R. A. 73; 166 U. S. 290, 17 Sup. Ct. 540, 41 L. Ed. 1007.. ...838, 842-844, 846 U. S. v. Babcock, 4 McLean, 113, 24 Fed. Cas. 928.... .341, 356, 357 U. S. v. Baxter (C. C.) 46 Fed. 350... 97 U. S. v. Beebe, 127 U. S. 338, 8 Sup. Ct. 1083, 32 L. Ed. 121. 84 U. S. v. Bornemann (C. C.) 35 Fed. 824.. 344, 942 U. S. v. Bowman, 2 Wash. C. C. 328, 24 Fed. Cas. 1212. .335, 347 U. S. v. Britton, 107 U. S. 655, 668. 2 Sup. Ct. 512, 523, 27 L. Ed. 520.. .354, 552, 553 U. S. v. Town Co. (C. C.) 18 Fed. 273.... 547 U. S. v. Cobban (C. C.) 127 Fed. 713..131, 132 U. S. v. Coe (D. C.) 128 Fed. 199.. U. S. v. Coffin, 156 U. S. 432, 448, 15 Sup. Ct. 394, 39 L. Ed. 481.. 107 U. S. v. Nihols, 4 4 McLean, 23, 27 Fed. U. S. v. Noelke (C. C.) Fed. 426. 337 465 U. S. v. Northern Securities Co., 193 U. S. 197, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679. U. S. v. Northway, 120 U. S. 327, 332-334, 7 Sup. Ct. 580, 30 L. Ed. 664...355, 552, 553 U. S. v. Ordway (C. C.) 30 Fed. 31.. 97 U. S. v. Passavant, 169 U. S. 16, 18 Sup. Ct. 219, 42 L. Ed. 644. .182, 185 U. S. v. Petus (C. C.) 84 Fed. 791. .354, 359 U. S. v. Potter (C. C.) 56 Fed. 83, 95... 336 U. S. v. Quinn, 8 Blatchf. 48, 66, 27 Fed. Cas. 673, 680... 347 U. S. v. Railroad Co., 67 Fed. 890; 146 U. S. 593, 13 Sup. Ct. 152, 36 L. Ed. 1091; 160 U. S. 19, 16 Sup. Ct. 190, 40 L. Ed. 319; 192 U. S. 524, 542, 23 Sup. Ct. 333, 339, 48 L. Ed. 548..98, 106, 197, 855 U. S. v. Rhodes (C. C.) 30 Fed. 431, 434 334, 337 U. S. v. Rosenthal (C. C.) 121 Fed. 862. 131 U. S. v. Saunders, 59 C. C. A. 394, 401, 124 Fed. 124, 131. 355 U. S. v. Conrad (C. C.) 59 Fed. 458. U. S. v. Deming, 4 McLean, 3, 25 Cas. 816 335 948 Fed. 347 U. S. v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 407, 26 L. Ed. 219 604 U. S. v. Denee, 3 Woods, 39, 25 Fed. Cas. 817 U. S. v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141, 165, 10 L. Ed. 689 U. S. v. Dominici, 24 C. C. A. 116, 78 Fed. 334 .341, 347, 348 U. S. v. Ferguson (C. C.) 54 Fed. 29. U. S. v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 460, 478, 6 L. Ed. 693 206 U. S. v. Edwards (C. C.) 43 Fed. 67...348, 350 U. S. v. Evans, 2 Fed. 147, 152, 2 Flip. 605; 19 Fed. 912.. U. S. v. Sheridan (C. C.) 119 Fed. 236, 239 955 .83, 84, 87 U. S. v. Sherman, 98 U. S. 565, 25 L. Ed. 235 529 166 231 U. S. v. Gue Lim, 83 Fed. 136; 176 U. S. 459, 20 Sup. Ct. 415, 44 L. Ed. 544... 879 U. S. v. Harper (C. C.) 33 Fed. 471, 475, 480 .552, 554 U. S. v. Hearing (C. C.) 26 Fed. 744.. 347 U. S. v. Henderlong (C. C.) 102 Fed. 2.. 83, 85, 87 U. S. v. Telephone Co. (C. C.) 29 Fed. 17; 167 U. S. 224, 17 Sup. Ct. 809, 42 L. Ed. 144 ..84. 198 U. S. v. Thompson (C. C.) 31 Fed. 331: 6 McLean, 56; 28 Fed. Cas. 98..344, 347, 352 U. S. v. Treadwell (D. C.) 15 Fed. 532... 604 U. S. v. Turner (D. C.) 50 Fed. 734. U. S. v. Van Winkle, 113 Fed. 903. U. S. v. Wetherell, 13 C. C. A. 264, 65 Fed. 987 U. S. v. Herrman, 33 C. C. A. 400, 91 Fed. 116 511 282 Vail's Ex'rs v. Railroad Co., 23 N. J. Eq. 704 8 Waterworks Co. v. Brownless, 10 Ohio Cir. Watson v. Bonfils, 53 C. C. A. 535, 543, 116 Watson v. Brentner, 1 Pa. 381. Waterman v. Shipman, 5 C. C. A. 371, 55 Fed. 982 288 Water Meter Co. v. Desper, 101 U. S. 332, 25 L. Ed. 1024. 313 704 427 503 917 197 702, 981, 982 Webb v. Fisher, 109 Tenn. 702, 72 S. W. 110, 60 L. R. A. 791, 97 Am. St. Rep. 863 247 Webber v. Mihills, 59 C. C. A. 578, 124 Fed. 64 2 Whitener, In re, 105 Fed. 180. White Star Laundry Co., In re, 117 Fed. 570, 9 Am. Bankr. R. 30.. Whiting v. Adams, 66 Vt. 679, 30 Atl. 32, 25 L. R. A. 598, 44 Am. St. Rep. 875.. Whitlieburn, The (D. C.) 89 Fed. 526... Whitman v. Bank, 49 C. C. A. 122, 110 Fed. 503; 176 U. S. 559, 20 Sup. Ct. 477, 44 L. Ed. 587... .729, 751 Whitney, Ex parte, 13 Pet. 404, 10 L. Ed. 221 Whitney v. Blackburn, 17 Or. 564, 21 Pac. 874, 11 Am. St. Rep. 857. Whitney v. Huntington, 37 Minn. 197, 33 N. W. 561. ... 286 268 95 888 956 Wood v. U. S., 16 Pet. 342, 10 L. Ed. 987 648 606 ....... 513 98 682 ....... Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231, 16 714 447 Wildenhus' Case 120 U. S. 1, 7 Sup. Ct. 385, 30 L. Ed. 565. 714 Willard v. Albertson, 23 Ind. App. 162, 53 N. E. 1076; 54 N. E. 446.. William A. Chapman & Co. v. Water Power Co., 126 Fed. 68, 372; 192 U. S. 605, 24 Sup. Ct. 849, 48 L. Ed. 585. William McCandless, The, 6 Ben. 223, 226, Fed. Cas. No. 5,321. Williams, In re, 120 Fed. 38; 123 Fed. 321, 323; Fed. Cas. No. 17,700. 686 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS. LOCKMAN v. LANG et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. July 18, 1904.) No. 1,923. 1. APPEAL-ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS-FILING BEFORE ALLOWANCE INDISPENS ABLE. The filling of an assignment of errors before or at the time of the allowance of an appeal is indispensable under the eleventh rule of the Circuit Courts of Appeals (91 Fed. vi, 32 C. C. A. lxxxviii), and the appeal will be dismissed if the assignment is not thus filed. 2. SAME-CONDITIONAL ALLOWANCE. An allowance of an appeal on condition that the petitioner give a bond in a fixed amount does not become effective until the bond is given and accepted, and the filing of an assignment of errors before or at the time of the approval of the bond is a filing within the time prescribed by the rule. 8. ERROR AND APPEAL TO REVIEW SAME RULINGS. The practice of taking an appeal and a writ of error to review the same adjudication is not only permissible, but commendable, in cases in which counsel have just reason to doubt which is the proper proceeding to give jurisdiction to the appellate court. 4. SAME ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. Where in proceedings by appeal and by writ of error to review the same rulings the alleged errors are the same in both proceedings, the filing of a single assignment of errors accomplishes the purpose of rule 11, and is sufficient to sustain the proceeding requisite to obtain the review. 5. SAME-MATTER OF RIGHT-TAKING REQUISITE SECURITY ALLOWS. An appeal is a matter of right, and it is allowed and the jurisdiction of the case is transferred to the appellate court by the acceptance by the proper court or judge of security upon the appeal within the time fixed by the statute. 6. SAME-CITATION AFTER TIME TO APPEAL HAS ELAPSED. A citation is not jurisdictional. Where an appeal has been allowed by the taking of security within the statutory time, and the transcript of the record has been filed and the case has been docketed at the proper term of the appellate court, the failure to issue a citation within the time prescribed for the appeal does not detract from the jurisdiction of the reviewing court, or furnish ground for a dismissal of the appeal, but the appellate court will grant an opportunity to issue and serve a citation. 132 F.-1 7. BANKRUPTCY-PLEADING BANKRUPT HAS RIGHT TO OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER PETITIONS AGAINST HIM. An alleged bankrupt has a right to a reasonable time to answer petitions for his adjudication. A single day is not a reasonable time for an alleged bankrupt, who is not within the district, to answer an amended petition, which for the first time charges him with certain acts of fraud and bankruptcy. (Syllabus by the Court.) Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. See 128 Fed. 279. Lester McLean (W. Scott Bicksler and Edmon G. Bennett, on the brief), for appellant. H. W. Currey (William L. Dayton, on the brief), for appellees. Before SANBORN, VAN DEVANTER, and HOOK, Circuit Judges. SANBORN, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an adjudication of the bankruptcy of R. H. Williams, rendered on March 24, 1903. Since the proceedings in the District Court which are about to be considered, Williams has deceased, and Forrest Lockman, the administrator of his estate, has been substituted for him in this court. An appeal from the adjudication in bankruptcy was allowed to Williams on the day the judgment was rendered, and his bond upon the appeal was approved by the judge of the District Court on March 31, 1903. At the ensuing September term of this court this appeal was dismissed on the authority of Webber v. Mihills, 124 Fed. 64, 59 C. C. A. 578, because the assignment of errors was not filed before or at the time of the allowance of the appeal, as required by the eleventh rule of the Circuit Court of Appeals (91 Fed. vi; 32 C. C. A. lxxxviii). Lockman v. Lang (C. C. A.) 128 Fed. 279. A motion for a rehearing was subsequently granted, because it appeared that the order which allowed the appeal was not absolute as in Webber v. Mihills, but was "upon the condition, nevertheless, that he [the alleged bankrupt] give bond on such appeal in the sum of one hundred dollars ($100)," and he gave the bond and filed his assignment of errors within the 10 days allowed for his appeal by the act of Congress. The conditional order of allowance did not become effective until its condition was complied with, until the bond on appeal was given and accepted under it. If no bond had been given or approved, the court below would never have lost, and this court would never have gained, jurisdiction of the case. Hence an assignment of errors filed before or at the time of the acceptance of the bond was filed within the time prescribed by the rule of this court. liams' assignment of errors was filed on March 31, 1903, at the time of the approval of his bond, and the appellee was not entitled to a dismissal of his appeal because the assignment of errors was not filed at an earlier date. Simpson v. First National Bank (C. C. A.) 129 Fed. 257. It is now contended, however, by counsel for the appellees, that this appeal should be dismissed because the specifications of error |