20 RINGGOLD'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

a master, by whom the obligation must be authenticated, and the
surety approved. In Maryland, the practice in Chancery is differ-
ent, and although there are many cases, as well as those of appeals,
in which a bond with approved surety is required to be given; yet
there is no instance in which a bond has been, like a recognizance,
required to be acknowledged or executed before the Chancellor, or
any officer of the Court; and I have met with but one instance in
* which any evidence of the authenticity or proof of the
25 execution of such a bond has been produced to the Chan-
cellor. (/') Although in some cases certain office bonds have been
required to be authenticated before some of the Judges of the
Courts of common law; and to be thereupon recorded. 1716, ch.
1, s. 3; 1789, ch. 20, s. 15; 1794, ch. 54, s. 8. But in all cases in
Chancery the authenticity of the obligation has been assumed, or
admitted, and the approval of the Chancellor, which is so often
spoken of, is confined; first, to the conformity of the instrument
to the requisitions of the law, or of the order or decree, in pur-
suance of which it had been given; and in the next place, to the
pecuniary sufficiency of the obligors. It is necessary, that the
penalty of the bond should be double the whole amount recovered,
or ordered to be paid, and costs; or in the amount specified by the
Chancellor in those cases where it has been submitted to his dis-
cretion to fix the amount; and also, that the condition should cor-
rectly set forth the judgment, decree, or order appealed from, or
the object of the bond; or that duty, the faithful performance of
which is intended to be secured by it. If the bond be not correct
in these particulars, it cannot operate as a supersedeas, or so as to
stay the execution of the order or decree; and therefore on the
fact being shown to the Chancellor the party will be permitted to
proceed to obtain the benefit of his order or decree. Johnson v.
Goldsborough, 1H. & J. 499.

The pecuniary sufficiency of the sureties offered is, however, in
this respect, a matter of the first and greatest importance. For
although the terms of the obligatory instrument may be, in every
particular, exactly as required; yet, if the sureties be insufficient,
or insolvent; or become so before the event happens which author-
izes the party to have recourse to it for the purpose of obtaining
the relief which it was intended to secure to him, it is, in point of

(j) Cox v. BOZMAN.—In this case, the bill having been dismissed with
costs, the plaintiff prayed an appeal which was granted; and he thereupon
filed an appeal bond, at the foot of which is the following certificate: ''Tal-
bot County, scilicit. 31st October, 1785. I certify, that the aforegoing appeal
bond was executed, by the signing, sealing, and delivery of the same, by
the persons thereto signing, in the presence of the subscriber, one of the
Justices of the Peace for the county aforesaid, and in the presence of John
Tibbel and John Daugherty the subscribing witnesses, John Bracco."—Chan.
Proc. No. 2. page 250.