instructed to settle by local act the method and limitation of appeals to the 
Governor and Council. 257 Therefore, no royal instructions were issued in this 
matter until 1753. A 1696 act fixed damages in case of affirmance upon appeal 
from the county courts to the General Court and prohibited such appeal 
without security given to prosecute and stand the award. 258 By a 1705 act the 
scope of the appellate review of the General Court in personal actions was governed 
by the amount of the judgment or decree appealed from. Where such 
judgment or decree did not exceed sterling, no errors could be assigned 
other than "errors in matter of right." In causes between and sterling, 
errors in form taken below could also be assigned. But in personal actions, 
suits in chancery, informations, "or other controversies" of more than 
sterling and in all real actions appellants could assign errors either in form or 
substance as in England upon writ of error. Provision for damages in case of 
affirmance varied with the nature of the action. 259 We have seen no precedent 
in English practice for variation in the scope of review with the amount of the 
subject matter. It is a peculiarly Virginian innovation. A 1710 act made further 
provision for security on appeal from the county courts to the General Court 
and for damages in case of affirmance. 260 
No limitation was placed upon appeals to the General Court until 1727/8. 
At this time it was enacted that no appeals should be allowed from any inferior 
court of record or court of chancery in any action or suit where the debt or 
damage or matter recovered, exclusive of costs, did not exceed current 
money or 1,000 pounds of tobacco, unless the title or bounds of land should 
be called into question. 261 Following this enactment the article for settling the 
method and limitation of appeals was dropped from the instructions. 262 
By an act of 1748, appeal to the General Court was limited to final judgments 
and decrees, the minimum was doubled, the 1705 provisions as to the dependency 
of the scope of appellate review upon the amount involved adopted, 
and the usual provision made for damages in case of affirmance. 263 But this 
act suffered disallowance on the ground of variance from the 1705 statute, for 
it altered the minimum original jurisdiction of the General Court from 
to £10, and instituted a £10 minimum for appeals to the General Court. These 
prohibitions might be attended with great inconvenience and detriment to 
trading subjects; therefore the 1705 act was more eligible as less oppressive. 264 
267 Supra, p. 79. 
258 3 Hening, Stat, at Large Va., 143. 
259 Ibid., 287, 300—301. 
260 Ibid., 503, 513-14. 
261 4 ibid., 182, 188. 
262 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, $446. 
283 5 Hening, Stat, at Large Va., 467, 481-82. 
Part of these provisions were also embodied 
in An Act for establishing County Courts, and 
for regulating and settling the proceedings 
therein (ibid., 489, 505-6). 
264 4 APC, Col., p. 139. Cf. Flippin, Royal 
Government in Virginia (1919), 308-9, 
where no knowledge is indicated of the 
1727/8 act or of the disallowance of tie 
1748 act.