Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-09-09
a dollars per annum.1

y fleming and Munford 557) after decision
| against the decree of the Chancellor n re-
nearing was granted by the unanimous opini
on or the Court, and the case is still depend
ing.-In Pollard VS.. Patterson, 6 Heninr &c
Munford 65) the principles settled by the
Snanceilor, IN Fozvter VS.. Hq,7fs q Heninei
and Munford s. and in Harris VS.. Thomas
Il Hening and Munfofd 18) are recognized
by the whole coui't.-The same rule which
was adopted by the Chancellor, as to eS,ecu.-;
tors and administrators giving security ON ap-
peals, IN the case of IVlson VS.. JIflson's az
illustrators Il fleming and Munford ls) was
adhered TO by the Court of Appeals in Sad
ler's executors VS.. Green, q Ienine and
Munford 26)-In Gallego VS.. QuesneHs ad-
mfnfsfrufor Il Hcning and Munford 2O4) and
BeGfy VS.. Smith e Thompson e Hening and
Muntord 395) the two courts adopt the same
principle in the construction of the act of the
goth OF January, 1S04.-AIn U7-ight VS.. Dasy-
ney % Hehing and Munford $3.50 the court of
Appeals unanimously refused to dismiss an
appeal, which had beenallowed by the Chan
cellor, from an interlocutoiy decree, at a
subsequent term, after the vacation iii which
1t was pronounccd.-ln Eanks VS.. anderson.
(2Hening& Munford 20) the Chancellor held
that bill OF review couldnot be allowed toan
intercolutory decree the Court of Appeals
affirm the same doctrine, in EHzeyvs Lonc( u
HeningS Munford 5S9)-The decision of the
Chanceilorin Moor VS.. The auditor 6 IIenintr
and Munford 232) was affirmed by the whole
Court of Appeals--In Chishoinr VS.. In
thony and Kenner VS.. Hord g Hening and
Munford LAY applications for appeals, from
the decrees of the Chancellor were denied.
The doctrine laid down By the Chancellor.
in Daingerfeid VS.. Claiborne g Hening and
Munford 17) was approved by one Of the
judges. g Hening and Munford 1861 and
has not been denied by any.--In Brarto,, VS..
Lee a Hening and Munford 376) the decree
of the Chancellor was affirmed as far as it,
gees and, indeed, as far as it,fotiM ro
consistently with the former decree OF. the
Court of Appeals, (see Judge ,Roane's orini-
on in page 3S6)-The opinion of the Chan
cellor expressed in MounGoy VS.. Loary; June
1909, a Hening and Munford 42S) is sancti-
oned by that of the Court of Appeals, in Oc-
tober 1909, .4tzvePs administrator VS.. Million
"a Hening and Munfoi'd 1885, D. In Blair vs.
2gvles Il 'Munford $50 the decree of the
.Ehancellor.was unanimously affirmed.
Besides the above cases, which are tlyin-
Ted, there are many others in manuscript.
in which the DEGREES of the chancellor have
been brought in reviewbefore thecourt of Ap-
peals, or some of the judges, and there has
been no difference of opinion between the two
Courts. Let the records of both courts be
examined and the cases critically analysed,
and it will be impossible to find a greater
number reversed, than that above stated
What motive, then, could possibly be found,
for the propagation of a tale, which might
have tendency to lessen the public conf
dence in the Gecisonso of the court of Chance
ry and invite appeals to the supreme courts
The judges of the court of appeals have, by
the most unwearied application, made con-
Girl ern N ~, Oh
docket.-Every thing which can aid them,
in their laudable efforts ought surely to be
done; and n6shing sajd&hich might have
Nndency againto clsg their docket, to the
Almost total obsses<6on of public justice
have said, th4tAan immense number Of
c4ses are dafHcdA by the Chancellor at
RichDnond !; &Ad doNot speak without au-
thority-Aevery tern he goes regularly
through, MS docket, caNAg it over two or
three times, till all the counsel, (some of
whom are necessarily absent during part of
the term have an opportunity of being heard.
The conveniency, too, of counsel who at
tend other courts is consulted They have
only to inform the chancellor ON what day of
Fffe term they will beElnseourt, and, in the
mean time, their causes are suffered to lie,
" calling the docket. But on the day APP
hpintea by themselves their attendance is
R1ct 4HHy expected.
AT - February Term, 1911, there
were entered in court, of orders and
DEGREES Gas
And, including DEGREES for divisions of
estates, and the foreclosure Of mort
cages there were finally disposed
OF 1870
AT June Term, 1911, there were entered
in court of orders and DEGREES s13
Md the causes disposed of as above
Dwere 142
From which there have been only FIVE APP
peals.
1t must be recollected that the court can
only sit tzosnty.fonr jurIdical days and it is
not pretended that all their orders and de-
crees are matured during term time the
truth is, that tho chancellor is constantly EN-
ployed in vacation, preparing for the an
preaching court. Without suchincessant aD-
phcation, no court whatever can keep It's
docket of chancery causes under. The inn
eenseColumes of papers which existin suits
- chakcery, could not even be read durine,
81 zig Of the court.
- author Of this communication cam .
not-pos,ibly be mistaken. lie would have
given the names of the cases, as well as the
result of the decisions, had he not been an
prehensige that it would have occupied too
much room.
VINDEx.
- -: 81 ~ 60
From TIE NATIONAL INrELLteFNcFR.