304 CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.

But those officers whose duty it is, thus carefully to examine
and consider the nature of the proposed grant, before they pass it,
cannot be presumed to know any thing more of it than what
appears upon its face, or than what is represented to them by the
applicant; and yet there may be a variety of circumstances, not
so apparent, or disclosed, which, if made known, would clearly
demonstrate the great impropriety and injustice of passing it.
Hence, in all such cases, where the interests of a third person are
likely to be materially affected by the granting of a patent, its
emanation may be opposed by such third person; for, when the
immediate possession of land is granted to two several persons, it
begets suits and troubles, which the common law will not suffer in
we king's grants under the great seal ;(i) and therefore, to prevent
such mischief, it is said, that there are three several stages at
which the making out of a patent may be opposed; first, when it
is under the consideration of the king; secondly, when it comes to
the privy seal; and thirdly, by a caveat when it comes to the great
seal ( j) This last appears to be the most formal and usual course,

In putting the great seal to a patent the Chancellor acts in
his legal capacity; and therefore, in hearing and deciding upon
any controversy which may arise, as to the propriety of passing a
patent, he sits as a court of common law;(k) and so long as an
application thus stands before the Chancellor for the great seal, he
may indulge the parties with further time upon such terms as he
may deem equitable and proper; but after the great seal has been
once put to the patent, then all further control over it by the Chan-
cellor in a summary way on a caveat ceases. (1)

A caveat in chancery is a petition or suggestion entered by the
party, who supposes himself likely to be injured by the granting
of a patent, respectfully cautioning the Chancellor not to put the
great seal to the instrument until the applicant has been called upon
to make out a proper case for his patent; and, also to shew cause,
if any he has, why the objections thus made to its being granted
should not be allowed. Upon which a day is appointed for the
hearing, of which the applicant is notified; and in the interval the
parties are allowed, if required, to take testimony in relation to
any controverted faSts. And at the hearing, the applicant for the
patent, considered as a plaintiff, or as holding the affirmative of the

(*) The Case of Alton Woods, 1 Co. 50.—-(j) 1 Mad. Chan. 18. 1 Cfaal. Opin.
Em. Law, 55.—(k) 3 Blac. Com. 40.—(I) Ex parte Beck, 1 Bro. C. C. 578; Ex
parte Koops, 6 Ves. 599.