CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING. 305

matter thus put in issue, is allowed to open and conclude the argu-
ment. After which the Chancellor may overrule, or allow the
objections; from which there is no appeal: but no costs are given
if the caveat be not unreasonable, (m) If the objections are over-
ruled the caveat is discharged, and the great seal is at once put to
the instrument, and the grant is thus perfected and issued; but if
the Chancellor sustains the objections, he then withholds the great
seal, and represents the whole matter to the king; who may never-
theless order a patent to be issued or not at his pleasure.(n)

The charter of Maryland gave to the lord proprietary an abso-
lute right of soil to all the territory comprehended within its speci-
fied boundaries; and constituted him vice-roy over the province.
Thus clothed with an unqualified title to all the lands, and a
limited, yet large extent of sovereignty over the projected State, he
commenced the settlement of the country in March 1634 ;(o) and,
as might have been expected, from the nature of things, the par-
celling out and sale of lands called for his earliest attention. It
appears accordingly, that among the first things done by the pro-
prietary, was to adjust and publish the terms upon which he pro-
posed to dispose of his lands, and the manner in which an individual
might obtain a legal title to any specified quantity he might want;
but of those terms, or conditions of plantation, it will here be unne-
cessary to say any thing further, in regard to original grants from
the proprietary, than that lands were given to emigrants as an
encouragement to their coming into and settling the country; or
they were sold at a low, but stipulated price payable in money.
But, large quantities of land, after having been thus alienated, were
continually reverting to the proprietary, considering him merely as

(m) Ex parte Fox, I Ves. & Bea. 67.

(n.) Leighton's Case, 2 Vern. 173; Ex parte O'Reily, 1 Ves. jun. 112; 1 Chal.
Opin. Em. Law, 152; Ex parte Beck, 1 Bro. C. C. 578; Slingsby's Case, 3 Swan. 178,
note; 1 Mad. Chan. 13; 1 Hal. Con. Eng. 489, note; 2 Virg. Stat. 523, 531, 537.

The process of obtaining a patent for a new invention; and the mode of prevent-
ing the emanation of such a patent, in England, by a caveat, is substantially similar
to that here described. Westm. Rev. Jan. 1835, art. 12. It would seem, that, under the
colonial government as well as since the revolution, the exclusive right to a new
invention could only be secured to the inventor by a special act of the legislature,

I Virg. Stat. 374; 1784, ch. 20; 17S6, ch. 23; April 1787, ch. 21, as the English sta-
tute of monopolies, 21 Jac. 1, c. 3, did not extend to the colonies, 1 Chal. Opin. Km.
Law, 202. But this matter now belongs to the government of the United States, and
has been regulated by the acts of Congress of the 21st February, 1793, ch. 11, and
15th February, 1319, ch. 19.
(a) 1 Boz. His.Mary. 274; Land Ho. Ass. 18, 64, 255; Cassell v. Carroll,

11 Wheat. 134,170.

39