Horace Gray

“ Afterwards, adopting a stricter rule, it was held that a writ of error did not give this court jurisdiction, and could not be amended, if the return day was wrongly stated (Insurance Co. v. Mordecai, 21 How. 195; Porter v. Foley, Id. 393) ; or if the real parties were transposed, although, as the court said: 'It is evident that the writ was intended to be sued out by the plaintiff in the court below, and that the names of the defendants, as plaintiffs in the writ, were used without their authority ”

“ But in the last of those cases, decided at October term, 1870, two justices dissented, upon the ground that the amendment might and should be permitted under section 32 of the judiciary act of 1789. 11 Wall. 88.
In 1869, a majority of the court, upon the authority of the cases in 21 How., above mentioned, and without referring to the early case of Course v. Stead, 4 Dall. 22, above cited, held that a defect in the teste of a writ of error could not be supplied by amendment. Moulder v. Forrest, 154 U.S. Append. 567, 14 Sup. Ct. 1207. ”

“ Ct. 83) ; or described either party by the name of a partnership, and not by the names of the individuals composing it (Moore v. Simonds, 100 U.S. 145; Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U.S. 545, 5 Sup. Ct. 616; Estis v. Trabue, 128 U.S. 225, 9 Sup. Ct. 58; U.S. v. Schoverling, 146 U.S. 76, 13 Sup. Ct. 24) ”