Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 216, and District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., § 11–205 (Feb. 9, 1893, ch. 74, § 6, 27 Stat. 435; July 30, 1894, ch. 172, § 2, 28 Stat. 161; Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 854, § 225, 31 Stat. 1225; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 120, 36 Stat. 1132).

The provision in section 11–205 of the District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., that a justice of the district court while on the bench of the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia shall not sit in review of judgment, order, or decree rendered by him below, was consolidated with a similar provision of section 216 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The consolidation simplifies the language without change of substance.

References in said section 11–205 to the power to prescribe rules, requisites of record on appeal, forms of bills of exception, and procedure on appeal, were omitted as covered by Rules 73, 75, 76, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Said section 11–205 contained a provision that on a divided opinion by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia the decision of the lower court should stand affirmed. This was omitted as unnecessary as merely expressing a well-established rule of law.

Other provisions of said section 11–205 are incorporated in section 48 of this title.

The provision of section 216 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with respect to the competency of justices and judges to sit, was omitted as covered by section 43 of this title.

Specific reference in said section 216 to the Chief Justice of the United States was likewise omitted inasmuch as he sits as a circuit justice.

The provision of said section 216 with respect to assignment of district judges was omitted as covered by section 291 et seq. of this title.

Provision of said section 216 relating to presiding judge was omitted as covered by section 44 of this title.