24 RINGGOLD'S CASE.

specific performance of a contract, or the benefit of the decree can
only be had by the delivery, preservation, or sale of certain move-
able and perishable property, then it is clear, that the penalty of the
appeal bond should be for a sum at least double the value of such
property as well as the costs, and any particular sum of money
which such decree may also direct to be paid. There does not
appear, however, to have been any rule laid down by which the
value of such property is to be ascertained, for the purpose of
fixing the penalty of the appeal bond. The extent of the original
jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, as well as the extent of the
right of appeal from them, has been limited by act of Congress to
cases where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of a
certain specified amount, (a) In regard to which it has been held,
that where, from the nature of the action, as in detinue, replevin,
ejectment, a writ of right, or admiralty proceeding in rem for a
forfeiture, the property itself, and not a debt or damages, is the
matter in dispute, the value may be ascertained by affidavits taken
on reasonable notice to the adverse party, or his counsel;(b) and
this it is evident, would be the proper course to pursue for the pur-
pose of bringing before this Court the means of making a just
estimate of the value of the property, in case its value should be
disputed, in order to ascertain what should be the penalty of the
appeal bond in appeals from orders or decrees in relation to subjects
of this latter description.(c)

In England, ball in error is given by a recognizance acknow-
ledged in the court below; and if the sufficiency of the bail is
excepted to, the party is thus called on to justify, or put in better
ball. According to the English course in Chancery, where a party
is called upon to give an appeal bond, or to enter into a bond, or
recognizance, for any other purpose, he is required to do so before
a master, by whom the obligation must be authenticated, and the
surety approved. In Maryland, the practice in Chancery is differ-
ent, and although there are many cases, as well as those of appeals^
in which a bond with approved surety is required to be given; yet
there is no instance in which a bond has been, like a recognizance,
required to be acknowledged or executed before the Chancellor, or
any officer of the court; and I have met with but one instance in

(a) Act Cong. 24 Sept. 1789, ch, 20. s. 22.—(6) Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 Dal. 20;
Courze v. Stead, 4 Dal. 22; The United States v. The Brig Union, 4 Cran. 216; Cooke
t. Woodrow, 5 Cran. 14; Rush v. Parker, 5 Cran. 287; Green v. Liter, 8 Cran. ^9.
(c) Some provision upon this subject has been since made by the act of 1826, eh. 200.