delivered the'opinion of the court.

. The decree in this case was rendered on the 26th of October, 1881. The record also' shows that the court on . the same day •entered an.order allowing an appeal and fixed the amount of the. bond. On the 29.th and 31st of October bonds for the appeal and supersedeas were executed by all the'several appellants, and- approved by the Chief J us'tice of the court. On the last day named the case was docketed in this court,- and a transcript of the record filed. Afterwards, on the 14th of. November, but during the terra at which the order allowing the appeal was entered, the appellees moved the court below to require additional security from-the appellants, Keyser, Howard, and Smith. On the hearing of this motion the court entered an order purporting to set aside and vacate the former allowance of an appeal, but at the same time made a new allowance to take effect on that day. .

Upon this state of facts, the appellants, fearing that execution may issue notwithstanding their appeal docketed ^here, move for hn order restraining the court below from proceeding to enforce the decree, and the appellees move to dismiss': 1, be- " cause the allowance of the appeal has been vacated; and, 2, because the. value of the matter- in dispute is less than $2,500.

. After the acceptance of the bonds for the appeal, and the docketing of the cause in this court, the jurisdiction of the court below was gone. From that time the suit was cognizable Only in this court. In Goddard v. Ordway (101 U. S. 745), there was nothing more than the- formal order of allowance entered, as in this ease, with the final decree. Such an order, while in that condition, it'wash held, was subject to the control which every court retains over its ordinary judgments during the term. In Draper v. Davis (102 U. S. 370), however, it was decided that, after a-boiid had been accepted by one of the judges in accordance with such an order of allowance, the jurisdiction was transferred from the court below. Here a bond wat not only accepted, but the case was actually entered in-this c(urt. In this way clearly the court below was deprived of power to. make its order of November 14. It follows that the ¿notion to dismiss, so far as it is based upon the order of the *267 court below vacating its allowance of tbe appeal, must be denied, and that the supersedeas which followed in law from the-acceptance of the bond by the Chief Justice is in force. Such was our ruling in Draper v. Davis (supra), on a similar motion at the last term.

The questions presented 'by the other branch of the motion to dismiss are important, and have not-been directly settled, as wé think, by any decision yet made by this court. Their further consideration is postponed until the case,is heard on its merits.