300 CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.—1 BLAND.

It is said, there are some instances to be found, within the early
periods of the Provincial Government, in which controversies insti-
tuted by caveat have been tried in the Courts of common law.
Land Ho. Ass. 84, note ; Noland v. Cromwell, 4 Mun, 160. In pro-
ceeding by scire facias in Chancery to repeal letters patent, where
an issue of fact is joined between the parties, as the Chancellor
cannot call a jury before him, the case is sent to a Court of com-
mon law for the purpose of obtaining the verdict of a jury upon
it. 1 Mad. Chan. 4. And so, in the instances alluded to, it might
formerly have been the practice here in cases of caveat, as on a
scire facias, to have the facts found by a jury convened in a Court
of common law. But however that may have been, it is certain,
that no such practice appears to have ever prevailed in England,
and that here, all caveat cases are now exclusively and finally de-
termined by the Chancellor, from whose decision there never was,
nor is at the present time any appeal allowed. Land Ho. Ass. 388,
409, 410, 415, 418, 424. But, although there be no appeal properly
so-called; yet the party, if refused a patent, might have obtained
redress from the sovereign, and, in that respect, unlimited discre-
tion of the Lord Proprietary; or he may at piesent obtain it from
the General Assembly of the State: or if the patent should be
granted, the caveator is not concluded bj it, for he may have it
repealed by information or scire facias in Chancery, or nullify its
operation in an action at common law. November. 1781, ch. 20, s.
13; Carwill's Lessee Griffith H. & McH. 316; Report of D. Dulany.
1 H. & McH. 554. So that iu eithei alternative of * putting
321 or withholding the great seal, a direct appeal, in caveat
cases, is thus rendered unnecessary; and, as regards the rights of
the State, nugatory if not entirely improper. Land Ho. Ass. 49(j.

When a patent has been finally authenticated, by having had
the great seal affixed to it, there can be no proceedings in the land
office, by caveat, in relation to if, the Chancellor's legal jurisdic-
tion in that form, as keeper of the great seal, having been thus
entirely cut off: Land Ho. Ass. 495; except in the case of a patent
obtained in .secret trust for a surveyor. 1789. ch. 35, s. 2. After
a patent has been thus finally passed, it is, befoie its being deliv-
ered, recorded together with the certificate, assignment, petition,
and order on which it was granted. Land Ho. Ass. 495. But it
must be recollected, that all cases of caveat on the Eastern Shore
are there brought before the Judge of the land office for the Eastern
Shore, from whose judgment there is an appeal allowed to the
Chancellor. 1795, ch. 61.(h)

(h) WILLING v. WRIGHT.— HANSON, C., 25th May, 1802.—This is the case of
an appeal to the Chancellor from the decision of the Judge of the Land
Office of the Eastern Shore. The Act of Assembly, creating the place of the
said Judge, and giving an appeal from his decision, not having directed in
what manner the appeal shall be prosecuted; but a transcript from the regie-