2 EINGGOLD'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

The Court of Chancery of Maryland has always governed itself according^
to the principles of the Court of Chancery of England.

THIS suit was instituted here in January, 1811, by the plaintiffs,
who were the cestim que trust, under a deed of trust, against
Samuel and Tench Ringgold, to obtain an account of the trust
property, and the payment and delivery of the balance in their
hands. And by a final decree of this Court of the 30th of Sep-
tember, 1824, the defendants were ordered to pay to the plaintiffs,
on or before the first of December then next, the sum of fifty three
thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven dollars and seventy-nine
cents, with interest on thirty-nine thousand four hundred and
eighty dollars and forty-six cents, part thereof, from the first of
July, 1823, until paid, and costs. Ringgold v. Ringgold, 1 H. &
G. 32.

From this decree the defendants appealed; and on the 20th of
October, 1824, the plaintiffs, by their petition, stated, that the de-
fendant Samuel had com eyed all, or nearly all, his property to
trustees for the payment of his debts; and they were apprehen-
sive, that those trustees would be offered as sureties in the appeal
bond. Upou which they prayed, that they might, on the filing of
an appeal bond, be allowed to shew cause against the sufficiency
of any sureties that might be offered, as the amount decreed to
them was very considerable; and they were willing, that the issu-
ing of execution on the decree should be suspended until the matter
could be heard.

* On the 3rd of November, 1824, an appeal bond, in the
6 usual form, was filed, executed by the defendant, Samuel
liinggold, and by Samuel Ringgold, Junr.. and Isaac Swearingen,
as his sureties. On which bond there was a certificate, signed by
William Price, a solicitor of this Court, in these words: "1 be-
lieve the above bond to be good for the penalty therein mentioned,
28th October, 1824."

On the 8th of November, 1824, the plaintiffs, by their petition,
objected, that the sureties in the appeal bond were wholly insuffi-
cient; that Samuel Ringgold, Junr., had no independent means to
justify his suretyship; that Swearingen had but inconsiderable
property, if any, in comparison with the vast amount for which
he was offered as surety—his employment, for a long period, hav-
ing been only that of an overseer, or manager, of the estate of
the defendant Samuel: that the defendant Samuel had, some time
before, conveyed to those sureties all his estate for the payment of
his debts then due; and, that it was doubtful whether the property
so conveyed to them, could be deemed liable to the debt decreed
to be paid to the plaintiffs. To this petition was annexed an affi-
davit of Mary Ringgold, one of the plaintiffs, in which she stated,
that those sureties were not sufficient; and, according to her infor-