80 court of appeals of maryland

The procedure during this period remained
much as it had been for the past hundred years
and more. The old writ of scire facias to hear
errors gradually dropped out of use, and defend-
ants in error or appellees learned of appeals by a
summons, or learned of them informally. The use
of the writ of error was at least as frequent as be-
fore, and a blank printed form of it was provided
and used up to about 1813. It was still regularly
issued by the Register of the Court of Chancery,
who designated himself, even as late as 1812, by
the abbreviated Latin, Reg. Cur. Can.

Before the end of the century some questions
of the authority and jurisdiction of the court
arose; and by an act of 1800, chapter 69, it was
provided that on reversals the court should have
full power to give such judgment as should have
been given below, and to enforce it by execution.
Apparently no rules were formally promulgated
prior to 1806, and there were no statutory defini-
tions of the jurisdiction and powers of the court;
it merely continued in the course set for it before
the Revolution. An innovation of importance was
in the introduction of the practice of returning
cases at law to trial courts for retrial after rever-
sals of judgments. That was begun with an act of
1790, chapter 42. Before that time a plaintiff who
obtained a reversal of a judgment against him
was under the necessity of instituting a second
original suit if he would proceed with his case;
but now the old common law writ of procedendo
was adapted to a new use to avoid that profitless
requirement. The writ of procedendo had orig-
inally been designed and used for the return to