case portington versus TARBOCK eoden die in court Lord keeper whether a appeal  will lie to this court from a decree in a court of equity in a county palatine  the bill be a bill of review and appeal to set aside a decree in the court of  exchequer in the county palatine of Chester make in a cause wherein the now  defendant be plaintiff and the now plaintiff wonder a defendant and it be  charge in the present bill that there be no sufficient ground for make the say  decree the defendant put in a plea and set forth that the party to the say  decree be and long have be inhabitant in the say county palatine and that the  land mention in the decree lie within the say county palatine and matter in  question arise there and that by the ancient privilege and usage in the say  county palatine such party and matter be and ought to be sue and implead there  and not elsewhere and that the decree in itself be just and not questionable  in this court for the plaintiff it be insist that the court of chancery be the  supreme and high court of equity and it be therefore but just and natural that  a appeal shall lie to it to correct the mistake and abuse of the inferior  court vide Addison v Hindmarsh post and it be say by the counsel that although  such bill have not be frequent here yet they be not without precedent of the  like nature and they cite the precedent of Edwish and Davis where such a plea  be overrule and the defendant Vernon chancery case put to answer and the case  of Humphreys and Griffith where in the equity court of north Wales they have  decree a infant to convey and the decree be for that reason reverse in this  court as to the jurisdiction of chancery on appeal from the court of great  session in Wales vide Galbraith v Neville b e Geo III in note to walker v  witty Doug Rep and they cite a case in the Lord nottingham time where a appeal  from the mayor court in London be allow but they be not relieve in that case  because they have first bring a certiorari bill and afterward consent to a  procedendo and by that have disclaim the jurisdiction of this court and  therefore the court will not entertain they upon their appeal the counsel for  the defendant chief insist on the practice of this court that such bill have  not be usual and that most of the case cite be certiorari bill and that all  court of equity be by prescription and therefore be all equal and no appeal  will lie the Lord keeper declare he think it reasonable that a appeal shall  lie there be no doubt but a certiorari bill may have be bring to remove this  cause but no bill of review can be bring for that be only to reinspect what  the same court have before do as to a appeal it seem to he reasonable saint  because this court be the high and supreme court of equity and the other be  but inferior court dly Even from this court there former lie a appeal to the  king and that be the course till the house of lord which be the high court  have frequent meeting and there determine all matter upon appeal and if from  this court there lie a appeal to the king himself why shall there not lie a  appeal from inferior court Vernon chancery case er p to this court where the  chancellor or keeper sit by the king commission there be no doubt but this  court may hold plea for matter within the county palatine because the party  may live out of the jurisdiction vide Addison v Hindmarsh post the court of  the county palatine of Chester be a original superior court peg v gardener Le  v et vide stride v little ante p the Lord keeper will do nothing in the case  at this time but direct they to attend he with precedent