RINGGOLD'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 19

imperishable and immovable; and therefore, in such cases, the
practice has been to follow' the course pursued at law, in the analo-
gous cases of writs of error in dower and ejectment, and to require
an appeal bond in such a sum as will cover the whole amount of
the costs and of the mesne profits as well as damages by any waste
committed pending the appeal, which the statute authorizes the
party to have ascertained at law by a writ of inquiry, and to re-
cover, in case the appellant should fail to sustain his appeal.
Wharod v. Smart, 3 Burr. 1823; Thomas v. Goodtille. 4 Burr. 2501.
But where the plaintiff in equity seeks a * specific perform-
ance of a contract or the benefit of the decree can only be 24

had by the delivery, preservation, or sale of certain movable and
perishable property, then it is clear, that the penalty of the appeal
bond should be for a sum at least double the value of such prop-
erty as well as the costs, and any particular sum of money
which such decree may also direct to be paid. There does not ap-
pear, however, to have been any rule laid down by which the
value of such property is to be ascertained, for the purpose of
fixing the penalty of the appeal bond. The extent of the original
jurisdiction of the Eederal Courts, as well as the extent of the
right of appeal from them, has been limited by Act of Congress to
cases where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of a
certain specified amount. Act Cong. 24 Sept. 1789, eh. 20, s. 22.
In regard to which it has been held, that where, from the nature of
the action, as in detinue, replevin, ejectment, a writ of right, or
admiralty proceeding in rem for a forfeiture, the property itself,
and not a debt or damages, is the matter in dispute, the value may
be ascertained by affidavits taken on reasonable notice to the ad-
verse party, or his counsel; Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 Dal. 20;
Courze v. Stead, 4 Dal. 22; The United States v. The Brig Union, 4
Cran. 21C; Cooke v. Woodrow, 5 Cran. 14; Hush v. Parker, 5 Cran.
287; Green v. Liter, 8 Cran. 229; and this it is evident, would be
the proper course to pursue for the purpose of bringing before this
Court the means of making a just estimate of the value of the
property, in case its value should be disputed, in order to ascer-
tain what should be the penalty of the appeal bond in appeals
from orders or decrees in relation to subjects of this latter descrip-
tion, (i)

In England, bail in error is given by a recognizance acknow-
ledged in the Court below; and if the sufficiency of the bail is
excepted to, the party is thus called on to justify, or put in better
bail. According to the English course in Chancery, where a party
is called upon to give an appeal bond, or to enter into a bond, or
recognizance, for any other purpose, he is required to do so before

(i) Some provision upon this subject has been since made by the Act of
1836, ch. 200.