Mayor of Baltimore v. Reynolds

Bartol, J.,- delivered the opinion of this court. In this case two appeals were taken, one from the judgment of the 19th day of July 1859, and the other from the judgment’rendered on the 31st day of March 1860. Motions have been’made, by the appellees, to dismiss both these appeals; but a’s the former has been abandoned by the appellants’ counsel in- open court, it is only necessary to dispose of the motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment rendered on the 31st day of March 1860. SinCe the decision of the eases of Hannon vs. Robey, 9 Gill, 440 , and Dugan vs. Hollins, 11 Md. Rep., 41 , the law is Vrell settled, that if the appeal be taken in time, the delay in ih’e transmission of the transcript’ of record to this court, furnishes no ground for dismissing’the appeal, unless it affirmatively appear that such delay is by the default of the appellant.

The other reasons assigned in support of the motion, have been carefully considered, but we are unable to perceive t.heir force. The facts disclosed in the record, and recited at length in the appellees’ motion, show that, at the trial below'1, “ various questions of law arose and were decided by the judge of the ²⁷³ Superior court, to whose decisions exceptions were taken by the appellant, at whose instance bills of exceptions were signed and sealed by the said judge,” and have been transmitted