24 court of appeals of maryland

answer, then discussed the organization of the
Court of Chancery. And it concluded by stating:

And we humbly signify that we take it to be against the cur-
rent and the meaning of the law, and incongruous of itself, to
have the same persons judges in the Provincial Court as also
judges in the Council, for the notion of appealing or writs of
error is to except against the judgments of these judges that
gives judgment and appeal to other judges in a superior court,
which plainly supposes different persons. This our present
opinion of matters above said, to which, with submission to
better judgments, we subscribe.

Upon consideration of this answer, the Governor
and Council concluded that legislation on some
points would be needed, nevertheless; and it was
prepared and passed. The enactment was added
to a statute regulating appeals and writs of error
from county courts to the Provincial Court, last
passed in 1692, (Chap. 9), and so is found in the
second half of the act of 1694, ch. 18, passed Octo-
ber, 18, 1694. This second half is here reproduced.³

ACT 1694, CHAPTER 18

And for the limiting and regulating of appeals from the Pro-
vincial Court, Be it enacted, that the method and form herein
expressed be observed and pursued, that is to say, upon any
judgment given or obtained in the said court, wherein the
original debt or damages shall exceed the sum of fifty pounds
sterling or twenty thousand pounds of tobacco, the appeal from
such judgment of the said Provincial Court shall be made unto
the Governor and Council of this province, wherein, and in the
prosecution of such appeal or appeals the party appellant shall
observe the methods and rules herein before mentioned for the
prosecuting of appeals from the county courts unto the said
Provincial Court, and shall give in such security as aforesaid.
And if such judgment shall be affirmed by the said Governor

3. Archives, Acts of Assembly Hitherto Unprinted, 1692 to 1729, 6.