McKIM v. THOMPSON.—1 BLAND. 161

Snowden v. Dorsey, 6 H. & J. 114, say, "that an appeal will not lie
from a mere interlocutory order by which nothing is finally settled
between *the parties;" and "which was only preparatory 173
to a final decree, and was liable to be reviewed at pleasure;"
or ''where nothing is done conclusive upon the Chancellor, but the
order remains open, subject to his final disposition, and may be
rescinded on motion." Let the order of the 12th of February last
be tested by this decision of the Court of Appeals, and every diffi-
culty must be at once removed; it is, upon the face of it, merely
preparatory to a final decree,—nothing is done conclusive upon
the Chancellor. The order directs, that the money "when so
brought into Court, be deposited in the Farmers Bank of Mary-
land to the credit of this case, subject to further order." The
place of the deposit of the money is ordered to be changed. It is
to be made more secure for the benefit of all concerned, subject to
be disposed of by any future order, or by the final decree, in such
proportions and in such manner as the right and title of the parties
shall require. This order, of the 12th of February last, is not
then, according to this opinion of the Court of Appeals, a
"decretal order.'' And the construction, thus given by that
Court, to the phrase "decretal order," in the Act of 1818, accords
with that which has been always heretofore given to It by this
Court.

The practice of requiring and giving bond, on an appeal from a
decree of the Court of Chancery, was very carefully inquired into
and considered, by the Chancellor in Ringgold's Case, ante, 5; and
in the course of his investigations in that case, he became per-
fectly convinced, that there was uo legislative enactment of this
State relative to appeal bonds from the decrees of the Court of
Chancery. The Act of 1729 only declares, that the provisions of
the Act of 1713, on the subject of appeals, so far as they relate
" to the prosecution of them," shall apply to Chancery cases; and,
so far as anything may be inferred from what was done by the
Court of Appeals in the case of Smith v. Dorsey, at June Term,
1824, (for the Court gave no reasons for their act,) it appears to be
the opinion of that tribunal, that there is no Act of Assembly re-
quiring a bond to be given on an appeal from the Court of Chan-
cery. But it would be obviously impossible, or very difficult, to
apply the provisions of the Act of 1713, relative to appeal bonds,
on appeals from judgments at common law, to appeals from the
multiform and complex decrees of the Court of Chancery. It has,
however, been the constant practice to require bond with .surety
on appeals from * the Court of Chancery, where the thing
decreed would be put or continued in jeopardy, or at risk. 174
The practice upon this subject, as heretofore settled and estab-
lished, the Chancellor has neither the disposition nor the power to
alter in any respect whatever.

11 1 B.