22 RINGGOLD'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

authentic instrument of those whose signature it bears; and, if
the pecuniary condition of the obligors be known to the Chan-
cellor, he approves or disapproves of it accordingly; but, if the
Chancellor has not himself a full knowledge of the situation of the
obligors, then their sufficiency must be certified to him by some
other Judge, by a justice of the peace, or by one of the solicitors
of the Court; upon which the bond is at once approved without
notice to the opposite party, or further inquiry of any sort;(k) for
it has rarely, if ever, happened, that the approval has been op-
posed, as by exceptions to bail in error, or to special bail; and, if
any such were taken, there does not appear to be any settled mode
of proceeding, by which to cause the sureties to justify, to ascer-
tain their sufficiency, or to have better sureties given, which would
not be attended with much trouble and delay. Such certificates
of sufficiency, it is certain, are, in many cases, too easily obtained;
yet there appears to be no adequate mode of correcting the evil.
The Court might censure or punish one of its own solicitors who
should carelessly or unworthily certify .sureties to be sufficient whom
he knew were not so; but the Chancellor can exercise no such
authority over a Judge, or a justice of the peace; and yet the
most of such certificates come from justices of the peace. The
Legislature may provide some mode of guarding against these
evils; Votes & Pro. Ho. Del., 4th February, 1825; but until they
have done so, this Court must, in general, follow the existing and
long established practice. The Court does not, however, mean
to say, that such certificates are to be considered as. in all re-
spects, final and conclusive evidence of the sufficiency of the
sureties offered; on the contrary, exceptions may be taken and
proofs read; and then, if the sureties offered, on a fair estimate of
the whole, and on due consideration of all circumstances, appear
to be insufficient, the bond will be rejected.(1)

From all that has been presented to the Court, in the case
under consideration, and on making a fair estimate of the pecu-
niary * ability of all the obligors in the bond, which the
28 Court is asked to approve, there appears to be an ample
sufficiency to answer the amount of the decree should it be affirmed.
This Court cannot allow itself now to depart from the existing'
practice, or undertake to introduce any new rule in restraint of the
right of appeal, which seems to have been always most liberally

(k) McMuLLEN v. BURRIS.—A decree having been passed appointing a trus-
tee to sell lands to pay debts, he filed his bond accordingly, which was en-
dorsed thus: "Wm. Pinkney is well acquainted with the circumstances of
Mr. Thomas, and begs leave to inform the Chancellor, that the within bond
is ample security for the performance of his trust." Upon which it was
"approved A. C. HANSON, Chan. 8th October, 1792." Similar in Dealer.
Steivart, 1794; Cole v. Garretson, 1795, &c.. &c.

(l) Some provision has been since made in relation to this matter by 1826,
ch. 200, 8. 15.