by the Maryland Court of Appeals in granting several appeals, i. e., "saving 
nevertheless His Lordship's right and ordered that it be entered by way of 
protestation against the said appeal in the manner wherein it is prayed." 230 
There is also some evidence that pre-1715 royal instructions had a continuing 
force during proprietary rule. In 1737 Attorney General Daniel Dulany 
brought an information against Charles Carroll in the Chancery Court for 
refusal to pay quit-rents on lands in Prince George County. Carroll demurred 
on the ground that the proprietor had an adequate remedy at law, but the 
demurrer was overruled by Chancellor Ogle, and defendant was ordered to 
answer. In February, 1738/9, Carroll petitioned the Chancellor for leave to 
appeal to the King in Council from this order. The petition was rejected in 
March, on the ground that it was contrary to the royal instructions to grant 
such an appeal from any court other than the Court of Appeals, the supreme 
court of the province. Carroll again protested that the same objection of proprietary 
bias existed against the Court of Appeals and that "the said instructions 
from the crown are not of that force they are pretended to be of, the 
said instructions being given when the inhabitants of this province had the 
happiness to be under the immediate government of the crown." Cessation of 
further process was prayed until the royal will as to the appeal could be ascertained, 
but attachment was ordered to issue against defendant. Finally, in 
May, 1739, Carroll capitulated and took an appeal to the Court of Appeals. 231 
Caution must be exercised in generalizing from this case. The outcome might 
be different where the court favored a stand contrary to the tenor of the pre- 
1715 royal instructions. 
Further provisions concerning Maryland appeals are found in the trade 
instructions issued by the crown in 1753 to proprietor Lord Baltimore. One 
article related that customs officers in the prosecution of seizures and personal 
informations in the plantations had been greatly discouraged and denied 
liberty of appealing to the King in Council. Therefore, Governor Sharpe was 
to allow customs officers the privilege of such appeals in order to a final hearing 
and determination according to the merits of the case. 232 The March, 
1726/7, circular instruction as to suspension of execution pending appeals to 
the King in Council was also embodied in these trade instructions. 233 
South Carolina was another colony where the instructional form was followed 
in legislative appellate regulation. A short-lived 1720 act provided that 
230 See Hunt v. Holland (i739> Md. Court 
of Appeals MSS); Lord Proprietor v. Maccubbin 
(1739, ibid). 
231 Calvert MSS, #322. When the Court of 
Appeals affirmed the Chancellor, Carroll took 
an appeal to the King in Council. Daniel 
Dulany to Lord Baltimore, 1741 {Dulany MSS, 
Box 2, #13). But the appeal was never entered 
at the Council Office. 
2S2 Md. H.R. Portfolio 1, #5, article #23. 
233 Ibid., article #28. For the circular instruction 
see 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #450.