officio to bar it and award defendant costs. 170 Presumably this act was the result of Holmes v. Freebody. 111 In June, 1771, the minimum for appeals to the King in Council from the Superior Court of Judicature was raised to lawful money. 172 When Rhode Island established a court of equity in June, 1741, to hear and determine appeals in personal actions from judgments of the Superior Court of Judicature, appeal to the King in Council was saved in those cases already covered by law. 173 Following abolition of this court, in 1743/4, ll was P ro " vided that appeal might be taken to England in causes pending in this equity court, where two unfavorable verdicts had been given against appellant and the existent minimum requirement was satisfied. 174 An obvious question is whether these minimums established by the Rhode Island legislature were binding upon the King in Council. The answer might vary with the confirmation or nonconfirmation of the establishing act by the King in Council in the course of legislative review. l7s But Rhode Island was little subject to the legislative review process, and in 1752 we find the Council Board allowing an appeal which had been denied below as under the legislative minimum. 176 In the colony of Connecticut the subject of appeals to the King in Council never constituted a subject matter for legislative regulation. In Massachusetts the colony charter itself contained provisions governing appeals. We have already seen that several attempts to re-enact that part of the charter clause which mentioned appeals in personal actions only suffered disallowance. 177 We next turn to Pennsylvania, where several acts appear concerning the judicial system which contained provisions for the regulation of appeals to the King in Council, but unfortunately this type of legislation was frequently disallowed. An October, 1701, act for the establishment of a judicial system contained a provision that judgments of the Provincial Court should not be so 170 Acts and Laws R.I. (1772), 17. 171 See infra, p. 649 et seq. 172 Acts and Laws R.I. (1772), 38. In June, 1775, the appellate jurisdiction of the King in Council was in effect abrogated; see 7 Rec. Col. R. 1., 355. 173 5 ibid., 23. 174 MS R.I. Col. Rec, 1729-45, 600-602. Cf. Fogg v. Harvey (PC 2/99/260). 175 See infra, pp. 570-71, on the force of a colonial act confirmed by the King in Council. 178 Pierce v. Rice (PC 2/102/438, 491, 497; 5 Rec. Col. R. 1., 356). Hazeltine mistakenly terms this allowance an exercise of appellate power by the General Assembly (op. cit., 327-28), although the Assembly's direction to the Superior Court of Judicature plainly reads "agreeably to the orders of his Majesty, in council." For further instances where appeals were allowed at the Council Board although denied below, see Hassard v. Potter (PC 2/ 93/251, 253, 263); McSparran v. Hassard (PC 2/94/24, 95, 128); Taylor v. Clarke (PC 2/ 101/364, 396, 429); Walker v. Paget (PC 2/103/74, 78, no); Freebody v. Cook (PC 2/104/36, 55, 62); Bannister v. Cunningham (PC 2/104/323, 439, 455); Stanton v. Thompson (PC 2/104/34, 4 2 ). Reasons for denial are not patent in all these cases, but failure to meet the required minimum was the main reason for proceeding by doleance. 177 See supra, p. 175.