McKIM v. THOMPSON.

the parties;" and "which was only preparatory to a find decree,
and was liable to be reviewed at pleasure;" or" where nothing
is done conclusive upon the Chancellor, but the order remains
open, subject to his final disposition, and may be rescinded on
motion." Let the. order of the 12th of February last be tested
by this decision of the Court of Appeals, and every difficulty must
be at once removed; it is, upon the face of it, merely preparatory
to a final decree,—nothing is done conclusive upon the Chan-
cellor. The order directs, that the money " when so brought
into court, be deposited in the Farmers Bank of Maryland to the
credit of this case, subject to further order." The place of the
deposit of the money is ordered to be changed. It is to be made
more secure for the benefit of all concerned, subject to be disposed
of by any future order, or by the final decree, in such proportion!
and in such manner as the right and title of the parties shall
require. This order, of the 12th of February last,- is not then,
according to this opinion of the Court of Appeals, a " decretal
order." And the construction, thus given by that court, to the
phrase " decretal order," in the act of 1818, accords with that
which has been always heretofore given to it by this court.

The practice of requiring and giving bond, on an appeal from a
decree of the Court of Chancery, was very carefully inquired into
and considered, by the Chancellor in Ringgold's case;(t) and in the
course of his investigations in that case, he became perfectly con-
vinced, that there was no legislative enactments of this State rela-
tive to appeal bonds from the decrees of the Court of Chancery.
The act of 1729 only declares, that the provisions of the act of
1713, on the subject of appeals, so far as they relate " to the pro-
secution of them," shall apply to chancery cases; and, so far as
any thing may be inferred from what was done by the Court of
Appeals in the case of Smith v. Dorsey, at June term 1824, (for
the court gave no reasons for their act,)* it appears to be the opinion
of that tribunal, that there is no act of assembly requiring a bond
to be given on an appeal from the Court of Chancery. But it
would be obviously impossible, or very difficult, to apply the pro-
visions of the act of 1713, relative to appeal bonds, on appeals
from judgments at common law, to appeals from the multiform and
complex decrees of the Court of Chancery. It has, however, been
the constant practice to require bond with surely on appeals from

(t) Ante, 5.