McKIM v. THOMPSON.—1 BLAND. 159

But they still retain the opinion, that injurious as may be the con-
sequences of this decision to the petitioner, yet the mischief of
special legislation to interrupt the regular operation of the course
of judicial proceeding, and the assumption of powers which by the
Constitution have been declared to belong exclusively to an inde-
pendent department, is of much greater concern to the community.
Such a precedent would open the door to the introduction of a
class of cases not more to be dreaded by the number, than by the
difficulty of distinguishing their various grades. From a state of
perfect certainty, through all the intermediate stages of convic-
tion, to a state of perfect doubt, as to the correctness of the judi-
cial decision which shall become the subject of relief, the Legisla-
ture may expect to find itself called on to execute this portion of
its newly assumed power.

* "The committee, in all the views in which they have
been able to consider this subject, find themselves compelled
to adopt the conclusion, that the prayer of the petitioner ought
not to be granted. They therefore recommend the adoption of the
following resolution:

"Resolved, That the petitioner have leave to withdraw his
petition."

"Mr. Clande moved to strike out the report, and the question
was put and determined in the negative. The question was then
put, Will the Senate concur in the report and assent to the resolu-
tion? Determined in the affirmative.'' The Chancellor^ Case,
post.

BLAND, C., 2d May, 1825.—In this case the defendant, Hugh
Thompson, by his counsel, on the 11th of April last, moved the
Court to grant an appeal from its order of the 12th of February
last, and thereupon filed and offered an appeal bond for the appro-
bation of the Chancellor. The motion was permitted to lay over
until the plaintiffs could be heard; after which their counsel ap-
peared, and asked to be allowed further time to reply, in writing,
to the defendant's motion, which was granted; and on the 28th of
the last month, a written argument, on the part of the plaintiffs,
in opposition to the motion, was accordingly submitted to the
Chancellor. The parties having been thus heard, the motion has
been deliberately and maturely considered.

The Chancellor took some pains, after a very careful research
into all the authorities within his reach, to explain the reasons and
grounds on which he founded the order of the 12th of February
last. The greater part of the debatable ground, occupied in the
discussion of the motion for that order, was as to its foundation,—
as to the kind of admissions, or state of things which would war-
rant its being made. The Court was, therefore, explicit upon that
subject. But, whether such an order was interlocutory or final—