294 CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.—1 BLAND.

After a certificate was returned to the land office, it was formerly,
as now, necessary that it should remain there six months to afford
an opportunity to any one concerned to enter a caveat against the
emanation of a patent. Land Ho. Ass. 278, 492; April, 1782, ch.
38, s. 2. But apart from, and in addition to the regular proceed-
ing by caveat before the Chancellor, which it appears always
might have been instituted, as at present, in any case where there
was a proper ground lor it, there were a variety of other causes of
applications for relief, where nothing like a judicial controversy
had been, or perhaps could be instituted or brought before a Court
of justice in any form whatever. If, after the lapse of the limited
period no caveat is entered, and the register finds the certificate,
and all other proceedings to be correct, he prepares a patent which
is signed, sealed and issued as of course. Land Ho. Ass. 492.
If the certificate, after having been returned to the office, has
been assigned; or the holder of it has died, it is not necessary, as
in England, to renew the whole proceedings; but it is sufficient to
state the facts to the Judge of the land office in a petition, accom-
panied by suitable vouchers, such as the written assignment it-
self, the will of the deceased, an affidavit of some disinterested
person stating who were his heirs or devisees, &c., upon which a
patent is ordered to be issued to the assignee, devisee, or heir; or,
in doubtful cases, to one to hold according to his interest, to the
uses of a will or the like. If the certificate or other proceedings
are obviously erroneous in some immaterial particular, it may be
corrected, on a petition setting forth the errors. Land Ho. Ass.
323, 434, 493, 494; Lloyd v. Tilghnan, 1 H. & McH. 86; Lord Pro-
prietary, 1 H. & McH. 135: Joice v. Harris. 1 H. & McH. 190; Hall
v. Gittings, 2 H. & J. 112.

As to these and all such anomalous cases, which were much
more common before the Revolution than at present, the applica-
tion was made to the Lord Proprietary in person, Land Records,
lib. C. B. 143, &c., or to his council for lands, or to his Judge of
the land office; and it was considered not as the commencement of
a judicial proceeding of any kind, but as "suing for acts of grace
and favor.'' As to all which matters the Judges of the land office
were in fact, but executive officers charged with the special direc-
tion, in peculiar and anomalous cases, of an establishment of great
importance to the Lord * Proprietary. The power to grant
315 acts of grace and favor, which, under the Proprietary Gov-
ernment, had been thus confided first to a council for lands, and
then to Judges of the land office, was, after the Revolution, recog-
nized as having devolved upon the Chancellor: and it has accord-
ingly been always so exercised by him; but, it is merely a power
to revise certain proceedings in respect to the sale of public lands,
and to correct immaterial errors in eases, which involved none of
that judicial power proper and necessary for the management and