18 RINGGOLD'S CASE.

extended to any order, decision, or decretal orderj but simply to
"any decree of the Chancery Court;" whence, it would seem,that
the right of appeal might have been, and, there is some reason to
believe, actually was construed, under that law, to extend only to
final decrees.(^) But it is well known, that the Court of Chancery
of Maryland had, from the very outset, and always, governed itself
according to the principles and rules of its prototype, the Court of
Chancery of England ;(A) and that the right of appeal was not
confined to mere final decrees, seems to have been admitted and
affirmed by one of the most important and best considered acts of
assembly, in relation to matters of equity; in which it is said,

(g) SLYE v. LLEWELLIN, May, 1721.—On motion of Mr. Daniel Dulaney, of coun-
sel for the defendant, it is ordered, that the Injunction in this cause be dissolved; and
that there go an order to the Sheriff to repossess Mr. Richard Llewellin, the defend-
ant, with the lands in the bill mentioned, pursuant to a former order of this Court,
made May, 1719; and that the bill be retained; and ordered hearing next court.
Whereupon Mr. William Cuming, of counsel for the complainant, moves for an
appeal from this order to the High Court of Appeals, the Injunction being dissolved,
and a writ of possession ordered. Which appeal is denied by his Honor the Chan-
cellor, the cause being not yet determined.—Chan. Proc. lib. P. L. 595.

(h) COWELL v. SEYBREY.—Mr. Moorecroft, attorney for the plaintiff, moves against
the defendant for a commitment against him to the Sheriff of Saint Mary's county,
until he do pay his contempt, and put in a perfect answer to the complainant's bill,
there being an attachment issued against him for want of an appearance. Mr. Rozier,
attorney for the defendant, puts in a demurrer to the plaintiff's bill. Mr. Moorecroft
prays the judgment of the Court upon the said demurrer; and further moved, that
the defendant was summoned to answer, and ought not to put in a demurrer.

2d June, 1669, CALVERT, Chancellor.—The defendant, upon serving of a subpoena to
appear and answer, may put in a plea, answer, or demurrer; and the same shall stand
good as if he had put in an answer, according to the practice of the Chancery Court
in England, the rules of which court, as to that particular, were read. Whereupon
it is ordered, that the said demurrer be set down to be argued upon Friday next, of
which all parties concerned are hereby to take notice.

In this cause, the Court caused the late Sheriff of Talbot county, to whom it was
alleged the said attachment was directed, to return his writ; he doth not appear, nor
had he returned that writ to the new Sheriff, being present in court.

It was thereupon ordered, that the respective Sheriffs of the respective counties
within this Province, do, by themselves, or their deputies, or attorneys, attend every
court held here at Saint Mary's, for the Chancery and Provincial Courts, to answer
to the said Courts for the return of writs to them directed, as they will answer the
contrary to the said Courts at their perils.—(1785, ch. 72, s. 23.)

Ordered likewise, that the said defendant Seybrey do pay unto the plaintiff, or hit
attorney, twelve shillings and sixpence for his costs upon the contempt of setting an
attachment 5 that he be committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Saint Mary's till
he pay the same. The defendant said he had no money; but Mr. Rozier, his attor-
ney, engaging, in open court, to pay the same, the said commitment is discharged.
Chan. Proc. lib. C. D. 5: 5 Franklin's Works, 355; Digges' Lessee v. Beale. 1 H.
& McH. 71.