RINGGOLDS CASE. 27

it has been deemed enough to lay before the Chancellor a bond
regularly drawn, and which purports to be the authentic instrument
of those whose signature it bears; and, if the pecuniary condition
of the obligors be known to the Chancellor, he approves or disap-
proves of it accordingly; but, if the Chancellor has not himself
a full knowledge of the situation of the obligors, then their suf-
ficiency must be certified to him by some other judge, by a justice
of the peace, or by one of the solicitors of the court; upon which
the bond is at once approved without notice to the opposite party,
or further inquiry of any sort;(j) for it has rarely, if ever, hap-
pened, that the approval has been opposed, as by exceptions to
bail in error, or to special bail; and, if any such were taken, there
does not appear to be any settled mode of proceeding, by which
to cause the sureties to justify, to ascertain their sufficiency, or to
have better sureties given, which would not be attended with much
trouble and delay. Such certificates of sufficiency, it is certain,
are, in many cases, too easily obtained; yet there appears to be no
adequate mode of correcting the evil. The court might censure
or punish one of its own solicitors who should carelessly or unwor-
thily certify sureties to be sufficient who he knew were not so; but
the Chancellor can exercise no such authority over a judge, or a
justice of the peace; and yet the most of such certificates come
from justices of the peace. The legislature may provide some
mode of guarding against these evils ;(k) but until they have done
so, this court must, in general, follow the existing and long estab-
lished practice. The court does not, however, mean to say, that
such certificates are to be considered as, in all respects, final and
conclusive evidence of the sufficiency of the sureties offered; on
the contrary, exceptions may be taken and proofs read; and then,
if the sureties offered, on a fair estimate of the whole, and on due
consideration of all circumstances, appear to be insufficient, the
bond will be rejected. (1)

From all that has been presented to the court, in the case under
consideration, and on making a fair estimate of the pecuniary

(j) McMuLLEN v. BURRIS.—A decree having been passed appointing a trustee to
sell lands to pay debts, he filed his bond accordingly which was endorsed thus:
"Wm. Pinkney is well acquainted with the circumstances of Mr. Thomas, and
begs leave to inform the Chancellor, that the within bond is ample security for the
performance of his trust." Upon which it was "approved A. C. Hanson, Chan.
8th October, 1792." Similar in Deale v. Stewart, 1794; Code v. Garretson, 1795,
&c &c-(k) Totes & Pro. Ho. Del. 4th February, 1825.—(l) Some provision baa
been since made in relation to this matter by 1826, ch. 200, s. 15.