McCullough v. Biedler

Irving, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was sued in Baltimore City, and declared against in the common counts. He pleaded in abatements, “that he did not inhabit, dwell or reside ” in Baltimore City, but did “ inhabit, dwell and reside” in Baltimore County. Issue was joined on this plea, and the question was submitted to the Court without the interven ²⁸⁴ tion of a jury.

The Court found for the plaintiff and judgment of respondeat ouster was entered. The appellant excepted to this finding, and a bill of exceptions was signed and sealed. It recites nothing but that “ the defendant excepted to the finding of the Court and prayed an appeal therefrom, and prayed the Court to sign and seal his bill of exceptions, which is accordingly done.” After filing this bill of exceptions, and without waiving the same, the appellant pleaded the general issue, and the case was tried before the Court without the intervention of a jury. The Court found for the plaintiff, and defendant again appealed from the judgment of the Court on the ground that the Court had no right to render the same, which is certified by the second bill of exceptions.

It is evident that there is nothing before this Court on either appeal for us to review, or which we can review. Evidence was offered, admitted,