320 CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.

decided by the, Chancellor according to right, to reason, and to
good conscience; or in other words, according to the rules of the
Land Office, and the whole law- properly applicable to the case :(t?)
or he may decree thereon according to equity and good conscience,
and agreeably to the principles established in the High Court of
Chancery, as if the matter were brought before him by a bill in
Chancery.(w) If the certificate be incorrect the Chancellor may,
at the instance of the party, order the survey to be corrected in
such manner as he shall direct, (x) In some cases, if the certificate
be vacated, he may order other warrant to be issued to the party
to the amount of the vacated certificate on which the composition
had been paid ;(y) and, as in chancery, he may award costs and
enforce the payment of them to the prevailing party, (z)

It is said, there are some instances to be found, within the
early periods of the provincial government, in which controversies
instituted by caveat have been tried in the courts of common
law. (a) In proceeding by scire facias in Chancery to repeal letters
patent, where an issue of fact is joined between the parties, as the
Chancellor cannot call a jury before him, the case is sent to a court
of common law for the purpose of obtaining the verdict of a jury
upon it.(6) And so, in the instances alluded to, it might formerly
have been the practice here in cases of caveat, as on a scire facias,
to have the facts found by a jury convened in a court of common
law. But however that may have been, it is certain, that no such
practice appears to have ever prevailed in England, and that here,
all caveat cases are now exclusively and finally determined by the
Chancellor, from whose decision there never was, nor is at the pre-
sent time any appeal allowed, (c) But, although there be no appeal
properly so called; yet the party, if refused a patent, might have
obtained redress from the sovereign, and, in that respect, unlimited
discretion of the lord proprietary; or he may at present obtain it
from the General Assembly of the State: or if the patent should
be granted, the caveator is not concluded by it, for he may have it
repealed by information or scire facias in Chancery, or nullify its
operation in an action at common law.(d) So that in either alter-

(v) Land Ho. Ass. 316, 373, 374, 400, 446, 452, 462; November, 1781, eh. 20,
8. 6.—(to) 1789, ch. 85, s. 4; Land Ho. Ass. 884; Hammond v. Warfield, 2 H. &
J. 151.—<ar) Land Ho. Ass. 403, 420, 450; West v. Hughes, 1 H. & J. 9.-(y) Land
Ho. Ass. 478.—(z) 1797, eh. 114, s. 8.—{«) Land Ho. Ass. 84, note; Noland v. Crom-
well, 4 Mtm. 160,-1(6) 1 Mad. Chan. 4.-~(c) Land Ho. Ass, 888,409, 410,415,413,
424.—(d) November, 1781, eh. 20, s. 13; Carvill's Lessee v. Griffith, 1 H. & McH
816; Report of D. Dulany, 1 H. & McH, 554.