RINGGOLD'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 3

mation, they were far from having means to meet, or support their
responsibility as such sureties. Upon which the petitioners prayed,
that they might be allowed to shew cause, and to take testimony
in relation to the sufficiency of the sureties offered.

BLAND, C., 9th November, 1824.—Ordered, that the matter of
this petition be heard during the second week of the ensuing De-
cember Term: And, that proofs be taken, as to the sufficiency of
the sureties offered, before any justice of the peace, by either
party, on giving reasonable notice of the time and place of taking
the same to the opposite party, or their solicitor. And it is further
ordered, that the issuing of execution on the final decree in this
case be stayed until the hearing of the matter of this petition or
further order.

Under this order proofs were taken on the part of the defend-
ant, Samuel Ringgold, which, together with the deed of trust from
him to Swearingen and Samuel Eiuggold, Junr., and the inven-
tory of the property conveyed by it, were returned and filed.

BLAND, C.. 30th December, 1824.—The amount decreed to be
paid having given to this matter a more than usual degree of im-
portance: and the prayer of the petition calling for an expression
* of the Court's opinion as to the nature and extent of the
citizen's right of appeal, I therefore deemed it proper to 7
appoint a day for hearing, so as to allow an interval within which
the parties might be permitted to take testimony in support of
their allegations, and so as to give time to look into the practice
of the Court in relation to appeals, for the purpose of having the
subject carefully reviewed and maturely considered.

It has always been regarded here, as well as in England, as a
constitutional right of every citizen to have his case reviewed, in
one form or other, by a Court of error. Chiristie v. Richardson, 3
T. R. 78. Under the Provincial Government, this right of the
citizen to have a revision of a judgment, in any civil case, affect-
ing his interests, was extended, in many instances, beyond the
Court of the last resort, in the Province, to the king in council.
1773, ch. 7, sec. 5, In reference to which extended right of ap-
peal, the Constitution of the Republic has emphatically declared.
" that there be a Court of Appeals, composed of -persons of integ-
rity and sound judgment in the law, whose judgment shall be final
and conclusive in all cases." Const. Art. 56. So as thereby, in
the most distinct and positive terms, to exclude aud prevent
the further prosecution of appellate proceedings, in any case, from
that ultimate tribunal of the Republic, as had been before allowed
under the government of the Province. Hammond v. Ridgely, 5
H. & J. 268.