RINGGOLD'S CASE. 11

When the appellant puts in bail in error, or gives security as
required, notice thereof should be given to the opposite party; and,
if he does not except, the bail is allowed; but, if he does except,
then better bail must be justified in a manner similar to that of jus-
tifying special bail in an orginal action; and if the defendant fails
to put in sufficient bail in error, the plaintiff may take out exe-
cution, (g)

In all the States of our Union, it is believed that some statutes
have been passed to prevent the abuse of this right of appeal. In
Virginia, with a view to leave the right as open and as large as
possible, and yet to prevent a party from resorting to it with any
hope of great delay; it was made the duty of the judges of the
Court of Appeals to sit at least two hundred and fifty days, unless
they should sooner despatch the business of the court. (A) And a
statute of North Carolina has gone so far as to declare, that the
party appealing shall give bond with surety to prosecute his appeal
with effect; which bond shall be sent up as a part of the record;
and, upon the judgment being affirmed, the appellate court may
enter up judgment instanter, as well against the sureties as the
principal in such bond for the amount recovered in the court below,
with costs and twelve per cent interest, (i)

In Maryland, the regulation of this right of appeal, with a view
to prevent its abusive exercise, seems to have been the subject of
early and repeated legislation,(j) prior to the passing of the
existing law upon the subject, (k) by which all those English sta-
tutes in relation to the same matter, which had been adopted,(l)
were virtually repealed so far as its provisions were, in any respect,
incompatible with them. It would seem, that the English statute,
which gave double costs on an affirmance of a judgment on a writ
of error, had been adopted as a law of this State, although no
instance may now be found in which such costs have been
Warded ;(m) and it is certain, that writs of enquiry, in actions
of dower and ejectment, have been issued after an affirmance in
error; and that judgments have been entered on such inquisitions,
although soch writs of enquiry may have now fallen into disuse.(n)

(g) Tidd, Pra. 1087.—(h) 2 Mun. Rep. Intro. 17.—(i) Yarborough v. Giles,
1 Hayw. 453; Kinchlin v. Brickell, 2 Hayw. 49.—(j) 1642, ch. 6 & 34; 1678, ch. 8,

1692, ch. 9; 1695, ch. 19; 1699, ch. 10; 1704, ch. 32, and 1712, ch. 5, (k) 1713, ch. 4-
(l) Kilt. Rep. 88, 92; 228,239.-(m) Gale v. The Proprietary, 1 H. & J. 343, note,
Kilt, Rep. 92-(n) Joan v. Shields, 3 H. & McH. 7; Gore v. Worthington, 3 H,
& McH. 96-, Kilt Rep. 239.