RINGGOLD'S CASE. 25

which any evidence of the authenticity or proof of the execution
of such a bond has been produced to the Chancellor.(d) Although
in some cases certain office bonds have been required to be authen-
ticated before some of the judges of the courts of common law;
and to be thereupon recorded,(e) But in all cases in Chancery
the authenticity of the obligation has been assumed, or admitted,
and the approval of the Chancellor, which is so often spoken of, is
confined; first, to the conformity of the instrument to the requisi-
tions of the law, or of the order or decree, in pursuance of which
it had been given; and in the next place, to the pecuniary suffici-
ency of the obligors. It is necessary, that the penalty of the
bond should be double the whole amount recovered, or ordered to
be paid, and costs; or in the amount specified by the Chancellor
in those cases where it has been submitted to his discretion to fix
the amount; and also, that the condition should correctly set forth
the judgment, decree, or order appealed from, or the object of the
bond; or that duty, the faithful performance of which is intended
to be secured by it. If the bond be not correct in these particu-
lars, it cannot operate as a supersedeas, or so as to stay the execu-
tion of the order or decree; and therefore on the fact being shown
to the Chancellor the party will be permitted to proceed to obtain
the benefit of his order or decree, (f)

The pecuniary sufficiency of the sureties offered is, however, in
this respect, a matter of the first and greatest importance. For
although the terms of the obligatory instrument may be, in every
particular, exactly as required; yet, if the sureties be insufficient,
or insolvent; or become so before the event happens which autho-
rizes the party to have recourse to it for the purpose of obtaining
the relief which it was intended to secure to him, it is, in point of
fact, as if it had never been given, or as if it had been originally
a mere nullity; and therefore, in all such cases sureties should be
given who are not only then sufficient; but who are likely to be
so when the contemplated event shall happen. Where money is

(d) Cox v. BOZMAN.—In this case, the bill having been dismissed with costs, the
plaintiff prayed an appeal which was granted; and he thereupon filed an appeal
bond, at the foot of which is the following certificate: Talbot County, silicit,
31st October, 1785, I certify, that the aforegoing bond was executed, by the
signing, sealing, and delivery of the same, by the persons thereto signing, in the
presence of the subscriber, one of the justices of the peace for the county aforesaid,
and in the presence of John Tibbel and John Dough erty the subscribing witnesses,
John Bracco. Chan. Proc. No. 2 page 250.—(e) 1716, ch. 1, s. 3; 1789, ch. 26
s. 15; 1794» ch. 54, s. 8.-(f) Johnson v. Goldsborough, 1 H. & J. 499.

4