Mayor of Westminster v. Shipley

Alvey, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Unless we determine to reverse the salutary rule of ’ practice stated and acted upon in the case of Wheeler vs. Briscoe, 44 Md., 308 , and in subsequent cases, this Courtis not at liberty to review the rulings of the Court below set forth in the bill of exception found in the record before us. That exception was prepared and signed too late, and under circumstances which deprive the appellant of the benefit of the exception. In the case of Wheeler vs. Briscoe, this Court said that a practice to sign bills of exception after the term, must be understood to be a matter of consent between the parties, unless the Judge has made an express order in the term allowing a fixed time for preparing it.

And in that case it was held, that as the term had elapsed and another term intervened, and neither the consent of the adverse counsel nor order of Court had been obtained extending the time, the application to the Court to sign a bill of exception came too late, and one signed under such circumstances could not be noticed on appeal-. In this case, it appears that the verdict was rendered on the 6th of June, 1887, and judgment was entered the same day ; and on the 2nd. of July following, an appeal was prayed and entered to this Court. The next ensuing term of the Circuit Court commenced on the 8th day of August, and the bill of exception appears to have been signed on the 15th of Sept, following. The signing of the exception was without t-he consent and against the protest of the appellee; and there was no express order of Court obtained extending the time for settling and signing the exception.

It appears from the affidavits filed that the counsel for the appellant prepared a bill of exception and left it with one of the Judges