reasonable at this distance. 120 Nevertheless, in November the governor gave an opinion in favor of plaintiffs, whether on the merits or on procedural grounds does not appear. 121 However, the arguments advanced against an appeal appear to have survived. Later, when a suit in chancery was proposed to settle the famous New Jersey land riots, it was seemingly opposed as affording no appeal to the King in Council. 122 In neighboring New York we find as late as 1770 adversion to the instructional silence as to chancery appeals. 123 The method of chancery appellate review in this colony is obscure, 124 but in at least one instance, Van Cortlandt and Philippse v. Palmer, an appeal from a decree by the Governor as Chancellor was taken to the Governor and Council as the Court of Errors. The appellate body in this 1727-28 cause declared that it exercised jurisdiction by virtue of the royal instructions. 120 Although such an appellate hierarchy coincided with the then instructional hierarchy, the later 1753 instructions limited 120 Coxe to Alexander; July 24, 1742 {ibid., #107). 12x Coxe to Alexander; Nov. n, 1742 {ibid., #108). 122 See infra, p. 368. 123 Cadwallader Colden cited 3 Blackstone, Commentaries, 55, to prove that an appeal would lie from an interlocutory decree in equity, but then adverted to the instructional silence (2 Colden Letter Books, NYHS Coll., Pub. Fund Ser. [1877], 249). 124 In Gouvernour et al. v. De Reimer an appeal was granted on May 20, 1717, but the appeal body was not designated {MS N.Y. Chancery Mins., 1711/2—ig, 55). In the 1727- 28 cause of De Medina et al. v. Het an appeal was moved for, but the appellate court was unmentioned {ibid., 1720-48, 63-64). In Hinchman and Edsall v. Bloomer in 1774 an appeal to the King in Council was granted {ibid., 1770-76, 155-57). 125 For the taking of the appeal in this cause on May 2, 1727, see MS N.Y. Chancery Mins., 1720-48, 50 (N.Y. Hall of Records). For further proceedings in the cause see MS N.Y. Chancery Order Book, 1720-35, 190, 210, 213, 220, 223, 226, 242, 246, 253, 257, 260; for the demurrer and the answer see N.Y. Chancery Pleading, P 21; for the lengthy parchment petition and appeal, reciting the decree and containing an assignment of errors at the end, see N.Y. Chancery Pleading, P 24; for the enrolled decree, see N.Y. Enrolled Decrees, P 1. Except as noted above all these manuscripts are in the custody of the Clerk of the New York Court of Appeals, Albany. On Feb. 28, 1727/8, James Alexander, counsel for respondent, moved the Governor and Council that the appellants bring up the transcribed decree within one week and assign errors within another or that the appeal be dismissed with costs. This was accordingly ordered, but then set aside on Mar. 2 because of insufficient notice of motion. Since this was the first such appeal ever brought in the colony, Joseph Murray, appellants' counsel, prayed directions for framing and prosecuting the appeal (15 MS Mins. N.Y. Council, 215-16). On Mar. 7, in response to several questions put by Murray, the provincial council board declared that it was of the opinion that it received appeals by virtue of the King's instructions, that as the instructions did not determine whether it ought to sit as a council of state or as a branch of the legislative, it did not think it necessary to determine the point. Secondly, the board declared that a transcript of the decree should be delivered by the clerk of the Chancery to the clerk of the council in three weeks and errors assigned at the same time. Because of damage by fire the statement of the council as to whom the petition and appeal should be directed is lost, but the surviving petition and appeal was directed to Governor Burnet {ibid., 218). On Mar. 23 the petition and appeal was received {ibid., 223), but the appeal was never heard. Cf. the later insistence of William Smith upon a review of equity decrees within the province {Opinion Relating to Courts of Equity within the Colony of New-York. [1734], 44)-