Ray v. Morse

Ti-iomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Somerset County. The appellee has filed a motion in this Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the bill of exceptions was not prepared and submitted to the judges of the court below within the time prescribed by the rule of that court, or the order of court extending the time for the preparation and submission of the same, and was not submitted to or signed ⁵³¹ by tlie judges of tbe court during the term thereof at which the case was tried, or during any extension of the time for that purpose, or by the consent of the parties. The record contains a certified copy of the rule of the court below, which, after providing bow exceptions shall be taken, declares: “In no case shall the progress of the trial be stayed or delayed for the formal preparation of bills of exception unless it be by the permission or direction of the court, but it shall be sufficient that the jmrty taking the exception note the' same at the time of the ruling made, and thereafter within a reasonable time after the trial, reduce the exception to proper form in conformity to the rules prescribed by the Court of Appeals for the regulation of appeals, and submit the same io tlie judge or judges for his or their signature; provided, however, unless otherwise expressly allowed by the court, the bill of exceptions shall he prepared and submitted to the court within twenty days from the rendition of the verdict.” In the absence of a special rule of tbe trial, court- prescribing tbe time for preparing bills of exception, the general rule of practice is that exceptions must be prepared and presented to the judge during tbe term at which tbe case is tried, unless tbe time is extended by an order of court passed during the term.

In tlie case of Thomas v. Ford, 63 Md. 346 , where there was no rule of the trial court upon the subject, Cm ee Judge At.vuy said: “Delay in the preparation of the exception ought never to he allowed beyond the duration of the term of the court at which the trial takes place, except it he hy the express permission of the court given during the term. If the exception be presented to the judge after the term, and without an order for the extension of the time, he can only sign the exception by the consent of the parties.” This general rule has been uniformly followed by this Court. Wheeler v. Briscoe, 44 Md. 308 ; Arner. Tobacco Co. v. Strickling, 88 Md. 500 ; Livers v. Ardinger, 90 Md. 36 ; Car ⁵³² ter v. Md. & Pa.

R. Co., 112 Md. 599 ; Sieling v. Brunner, 117 Md. 682 . Where the time has been expressly extended by the court during the time limited by the rule of court, or during the term, where there is no rule upon the subject, it may be further extended by the court by an order passed before the expiration of the previous extension (Carter v. Md. & Pa. R. Co., supra), but unless the exceptions are submitted to the trial judge within the time thus allowed, or are signed by the consent of the parties, they cannot be considered by this Court on appeal. Amer.

Tobacco Co. v. Strickling, supra; 2 Poe, Pl. & Pr., sec. 219. It appeal’s from a copy of the docket entries in the record that the case was tried at the April term, 1921, of the court