The First Century of the Court of Chancery.    xliii

    The answer to the second error claimed is of special interest to us here as it
    unquestionably presents a true picture of the court as it had then developed:
    “To the second Error and said Gerrard doth positively deney that the honoble
    Chancellor now being was at the time of the judgemt or the dismiss of the Court
    of Chancery * * * Cheife Judge of the Court of Chancery for tht tyme or
    att any tyme since he never was by authority proclaymed as cheife Judge of the
    Chancery Court * * * or did he ever that he knoweth thereof assume that
    place or power as Cheife Judge of that Court But that the Leiutenn.t Generall
    [Governor] that now is hath from tyme to tyme by vertue of his Com.on as he
    supposeth satt as Judge of that Courte since his Arrivall into this Province, for
    other ways if itt should be granted that the hono.ble Leiutenn.t Generall in
    Judgemt of lawe sitting in the Courte of Chancery be inferiour in place or
    precedency to the Chancellor were to render the person whome he Representeth,
    to say the Rt honoble the Lord Propry inferior to those wch are subjects under
    his dominion which would seeme strange and incongruous both to lawe and
    reason. And the Gerrard doth suppose that the Chancellor is not constituted
    here in this Province according to the full & ample authority & regulacOn of
    the lawes and Customes of engld. But by vertue of a comon from the Lord
    Propr of this Province and soe hath not such ample authority as is supposed,
    but grant itt were soe yett nevertheles the Lord Propr hath not as yett parted
    with his perticuler authority in that Court for the sd Leiutennt Generall doth to
    this day sitt in Chancery as cheife Judge and all Addresses are made to him &
    his Councell & soe was itt in Snowes case therefore the second Error cannot
    howld but is as the sd Gerrard supposeth superfluous & immateriall “.
      The Upper House sitting as the highest appellate court of the Province decided
    that the first error was not “Rightly layd”; and then took into consideration
    “the second Error, (vizt) the power of the Chancellor and his dissent, and
    waved (waived) “. It is unfortunate that the Upper House simply waived a
    decision as to the second error claimed, but all the facts indicate that the current
    view was that of Gerrard, that the Governor and not the Chancellor was the
    chief judge in the Court of Chancery and that the Chancellor's opinion counted
    for no more than that of any other associate justice of the court. That a decision
    in favor of Snowe was rendered on the first error alleged need not concern us
    here, as it does not in any way involve the powers or functions of the Chancellor
    or the Chancery Court (Arch. Md. i, 5 13-4, 527-530).
      Upon the death of Philip Calvert in December, 1682, the Lord Proprietary
    then in residence as Governor in Maryland, appointed his cousin Henry Darnall
    and William Digges to be joint Keepers of the Great Seal, chief judges of
    probate, and councillors, and the oaths of office were administered to them
    January26, 1682/83. The following day the Proprietary issued “ An additional
    commission to the Keepers of the Great Seal “, which recited, that as under the
    oath previously taken they were authorized to apply the seal only under special
    orders from the Proprietary, this was to give additional authority to “you or
    either or you” to apply the seal “unto all things for the publick adminrcon of
    Justice and the managemt of the Government here (Arch. Md. xvii, 196).
    In May 1683, Darnall and Digges were also given power as Keepers of the