20 RINGGOLD'S CASE.

script of the full proceedings of the court whence such appeal shall
be made under the hand of the clerk of the said court and seal
thereof, and shall cause the same to be transmitted to the court
before whom such appeal is to be heard; and also in the same court
file, in writing, according to the rule of the same court, such causes,
or reasons, as he had for making the appeal; upon which transcript
the Court, to whom the appeal shall be made, shall proceed to give
judgment.(m) After which the legislature further declared, "that
appeals from the Court of Chancery to the Court of Appeals, shall
be subject to the same regulation and limitation, as to the prose-
cution of them, as appeals from the courts of common law are.(n)
But there is no act of assembly which directs, that the execution
of a decree in chancery shall, in any case, be stayed on the appel-
lant's giving bond, with sureties, for the prosecution of his appeal,
or which, in any manner whatever, prescribes the terms upon which
any appeal may be granted; or the conditions upon which the
execution of any decree of the Court of Chancery shall be delayed
until the appeal can be heard and determined. As to all such
matters, therefore, this Court has always been, as it now is, governed
by the analogous practice of our own courts, so far as it can be so
considered, and by the rules and practice of the English Court of
Chancery in like cases. (0)

There are some cases to be found among the proceedings of the
Chancery Court, during the provincial government, in which it
appears, that, here as in England, the decree has been introduced
by a brief recital of the allegations and proofs in the case? but
there are few instances of the kind to be met with since the revo-
lution, (p) Nothing, however, has been more common than for
the Chancellor himself to state the case and to give his opinion, in
writing, upon it as introductory to his decree. But neither of these
modes of proceeding can be, or indeed ever have been regarded by
the appellate court as sufficiently showing what were the excep-
tions and points in controversy before the court below. In the
recital of the allegations and proofs it could not but often happen,
that much was stated which had not been at all controverted; and
as the recital was made under the sanction of the Chancellor it

(m) 1713, ch. 4, s. 4.—(n) 1729, ch 3, s. 3.—(o) But see the act passed since
1826, ch. 200.—(p) The Proprietory v. Jenings, 1. H. & McH, 140; Sparrow v.
Gassaway, 1733; Chan. Proc. lib. J. R.; No. 2, p. 405; O'Brien v. Connor, 2 Ball

6 Bea. 146; Gregory v. Molesworth, 3 Atk. 627; Ex parte The Earl of Ilehester,

7 Ves. 373.