effectually to prosecute. 185 In 1727 the circular royal instruction as to suspension 
of execution unless respondent furnished security was received in Pennsylvania 
188 and added as an amendment to a bill passed in the same year for the 
establishment of courts of judicature. 187 This 1727 act thus re-enacted the 1722 
provisions, with a change of the security requirement to double the sum recovered, 
and added the instructional provision as to suspension of execution. 188 
However, 1731 saw the amending act disallowed as prejudicial to the royal 
revenue and as an encouragement of illegal trade in the province. lB9 As a result 
of this repeal, the 1722 act again came into force. 190 In the main the appellate 
regulations of this act were the formal legislative authority during the 
remainder of the colonial period, although further limitation upon the right 
of appeal was embodied in a provision of a 1767 amending act. Appeals from 
the Supreme Court were prohibited in cases where general verdicts were given 
and limited to cases of a demurrer to evidence, a bill of exceptions, or in which 
a writ of error might legally be brought. Petitions for appeals in prohibited 
cases were to be disallowed, and the court was to proceed as if none had been 
moved for. 191 Although we have seen no evidence on the point, this enactment 
may possibly constitute an intercolonial effect of Cunningham v. 
Forsey. 102 
It is difficult to determine from inspection of the Pennsylvania Supreme 
Court records which act in practice regulated appeals. In most cases the appeal 
was allowed on payment of costs and giving security "according to the act of 
Assembly"—without designating the act. 193 In one instance a nonexistent act 
of 11 Anne is mentioned. 194 In another, security in double the amount of the 
judgment is mentioned, 195 thus excluding the 1722 act. Further instances mention 
,£3OO security, which coincides with the requirement of the 1722 act. 190 
185 Charter and Laws Prov. Pa., 391. 
186 1 Pa. Archives (Ist ser.), 196-97; Charter 
and Laws Prov. Pa., 395. As to whether this 
instruction was binding see discussion infra, 
p. 604. 
187 3 Col. Rec. Pa., 278. 
188 An Act for the Establishing of Courts of 
Judicature in this province, Charter and Laws 
Prov. Pa., 399. 
189 3 APC, Col., #193. 
190 See Charter and Laws Prov. Pa., 404. 
191 An Act to amend the Act Intituled An Act 
for establishing Courts of Judicature within 
this Province, Charter and Laws Prov. Pa., 409. 
192 See infra, p. 390. 
193 § ee wilcocks v. Oldman (MS Appearance 
Docket, Pa. Sup. Ct., 1758-64, 394); Browne 
v. McMurterie (ibid., 448); Fothergill v. 
Stover (ibid., 450); Bryan v. Moore (ibid., 
1764-68, 119); Coxe v. Moore (ibid., 120); 
Elliot v. Moore (ibid., 120); Weiser v. Denny 
(ibid., 181); Swift v. Hawkins (ibid., 591); 
Swift v. Jones (ibid., 591); Swift v. Mitchell 
(ibid., 591); Pike v. Hoare (ibid., 1769-71, 
43); Blasthford v. Kennedy (ibid., 49); Smith 
v. Reed (ibid., 2772-74, 60). 
194 Toxin v. Sweet (ibid., 7772—74, 89). 
i9o Nixon and Harper v. Long and Plumstead 
(ibid., 1764-68, 93). 
196 Streiper v. Logan (ibid., 1772.-74, 241). 
In 1736 two Marylanders, Rumsey and Carroll, 
were fined £50 and respectively, by 
the Supreme Court as an incident of boundary 
strife. Both were granted appeals to the King 
in Council upon respectively giving £300 to 
prosecute with effect in 18 months and to pay 
all charges. Daniel Dulany to Lord Baltimore, 
Oct. 29, 1736 (Dulany MSS, Box 2, #4).