162 McKIM v. THOMPSON.—1 BLAND.

But if an appeal would lie from such an order as that of the
12th of February last, and if the Chancellor could, in no case, on
an appeal, as in England, order the money to be paid into Court,
to remain there pending the appeal, and if he were bound, as has
been contended, by positive legislative provisions to grant the
appeal, on the parties entering into bond with approved surety,
then it would be utterly futile to ask for, or obtain such an order in
any case whatever, even in the plainest and strongest that could
be imagined; since the party thus called on could always suspend
its execution at pleasure. The order in this case calls on the
party to bring the money into Court, that the Court itself may have
it placed in perfect safety for the benefit of all concerned;(e) not
that he shall merely give security for the payment of it. But if
the party could appeal from such an order, and suspend its execu-
tion, by giving an appeal bond, then he could, in effect, prevent
the Court from going farther than barely demanding security for
the payment of the money. The consequence of which would be,
that such oiders would operate partially and not alike upon every
citizen; upon those most wealthy and best able to comply, they
would be mere cobwebs; but upon those least able to find security
they would have their full and just effect; they would operate as
rigid injunctions. Upon the whole, the Chancellor is perfectly
satisfied that an appeal cannot be allowed, and therefore,

It is ordered, That the motion of Hugh Thompson, to grant an
appeal from the order of this Court, made on the 12th of February
last, directing him to bring a certain sum of money into Court, as
therein set forth, be and the same is hereby overruled and re-
jected.

After which, on application, and its being shewn that the order
of the 12th of February had been served as required, an attach-
ment was ordered against the defendant Thompson, returnable
forthwith; but it so happened, that the process was never served
*on him. At the June Term of 1825, of the Court of
175 Appeals, the defendant Thompson applied to that Court for
an order prohibiting the Chancellor from proceeding pending the
appeal, upon which an order was passed and certified to the Court
of Chancery accordingly. As to which, see 6 H. & J. 321, 334.

The case having abated by the death of Thompson, the parties
filed an agreement in the Court of Chancery, under which Robert
Oliver, as executor of Thompson, appeared as a party in his stead;
and upon which the following order was passed.

(e) It is admitted on all hands, that the Court has, in all cases, the power
to invest any money in its hands so as to keep it productive pending the liti-
gation; and therefore there can be no ground to object, that if the money
were called in, there would necessarily be any great loss of interest in a case
like this.—Latimer v. Hanson, ante, 51.