RINGGOLD'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 17

Litt. Rep. 146; Ruling v. Fort, 2 Litt. Rep. 194. And by thus
suffering itself, in any respect, to put forth a power, beyond its
appropriate sphere, it must inevitably draw to itself much busi-
ness not properly belonging to it; and often take the parties by
surprise with exceptions and points which had never before been
thought of: or which had been, until then, purposely concealed, in
order to defeat a party of his just right as authenticated by the
judgment of the Court below; where all such new objections might
have been readily removed, had they been then made, and the
parties apprised of them at the proper stage of the controversy.
Carroll v. Norwood, 4 //. &• McH. 290; Mahoney v. Axhton, 4 H.
& McH. 323; Beekmnn v. Front, 18 John. 558.

* There is, however, nothing to be met with in the pro-
ceedings of this Court going to show, that the Court of 22
Appeals has, at any time, in Chancery eases, rigidly confined
itself to the exceptions and points made in the Court below: and,
perhaps, that Court might find it difficult to do so, unless some
written evidence of the exceptions taken and points made, in this
Court, were placed upon the record. And therefore it might be
well to have it enacted, by the Legislature, as a general rule, in all
cases of appeal from the Court of Chancery, that a party should
not be allowed to take any exception, or make any point in the
Court of Appeals, which he had not taken or made in writing and
filed, before the hearing, in the Court of Chancery, (g)

It appears, that this Court has always exercised a discretionary
power over the right of appeal, analogous to that exercised by the
Courts of common law and in Chancery of England, so far as to
prevent its abuse, it being taken frivolously, vexatiously, or for
the mere purpose of delaj, by refusing to grant an appeal from
every order with which a party may be dissatisfied; or by refusing
to stay the execution of the order or decree, but upon certain
terms, or until the party had given bond with sufficient sureties,
as required by the Act of Assembly in cases at common law, to
prosecute his appeal with effect; (h) and it must also appear, that

(g) Some partial provisions have been made in relation to this matter by
the Acts of 1825, oh. 117, s. 2: and 1832, eh. 303, s. 5.

(7) RAWLINGS v. STEWART.—This was a bill filed by a mortgagor against a
mortgagee to redeem; and for an injunction to stay waste. The injunction
was granted as prayed. Among the proofs is a deposition of a witness taken
on the 10th of January. 1751, before the Mayor of London under the Act of
5 Geo. 3, c. 7. Upon all which the following decree was passed.

"And the said cause standing in Court ready for hearing, a day was by
this Court appointed for hearing thereof, on which day, being the first day
of June in the year seventeen hundred and eighty, the said cause coming
on accordingly to be debated before the Chancellor of Maryland, in the
presence of counsel learned on both sides, the substance of the complain-
ant's bill, the answer of the defendant, the proofs and exhibits in the cause
appearing to be to the effect herein recited and set forth; whereupon, and
2 1B.