314 CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING,

of the Land Office to the Board of Revenue, and at other times,
as to some matters, to the Chancellor, (v)

After a certificate was returned to the Land Office, it was formerly,
as now, necessary that it should remain there six months to afford
an opportunity to any one concerned to enter a caveat against the
emanation of a patent.(w) But apart from, and in addition to the
regular proceeding by caveat before the Chancellor, which it appears
always might have been instituted, as at present, in any case where
there was a proper ground for it, there were a variety of other
causes of applications for relief, where nothing like a judicial con-
troversy had been, or perhaps could be instituted or brought
before a court of justice in any form whatever. If, after the lapse
of the limited period no caveat is entered, and the register finds
the certificate, and all other proceedings to be correct, he prepares
a patent which is signed, sealed and issued as of course, (x) If
the certificate, after having been returned to the office, has been
assigned; or the holder of it has died, it is not necessary, as in
England, to renew the whole proceedings; but it is sufficient to
state the facts to the judge of the Land Office in a petition, accom-
panied by suitable vouchers, such as the written assignment itself,
the will of the deceased, an affidavit of some disinterested person
stating who were his heirs or devisees, &c., upon which a patent
is ordered to be issued to the assignee, devisee, or heir; or, in
doubtful cases, to one to hold according to his interest, to the uses
of a will or the like. If the certificate or other proceedings are
obviously erroneous in some immaterial particular, it may be cor-
rected, on a petition setting forth the errors, (y)

As to these and all such anomalous cases, which were much
more common before the revolution than at present, the application
was made to the lord proprietary in person,(2) or to his council for
lands, or to his judge of the Land Office; and it was considered
not as the commencement of a judicial proceeding of any kind,
but as " suing for acts of grace and favour." As to all which
matters the judges of the Land Office were in fact, but executive
officers charged with the special direction, in peculiar and anoma-
lous cases, of an establishment of great importance to the lord pso-

(v) Land Ho. Ass. 262, 273, 283; Chancellor's Case, post, note r.~(w) Land
Ho. Ass. 278, 492; April 1782, ch. 38, s. 2.—(x) Land Ho. Ass. 402.—(y) Land Ho.
Ass. 323, 434, 493, 494; Lloyd v. Tilghman, 1 H. & McH. 86; Lord Proprietary,
1 H.&McH. 135; Joicev. Harris, 1 H. & McH. 196; Hall v. Gittings, 2 H. & J.
112.-(z) Land Records, lib. C. B. 143, &c.