Southern Maryland National Bank v. County Commissioners

Boyd, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant sued the appellee in assumpsit on six common counts. Upon a demand for a hill of particulars there was tiled what is called a “List of County Orders,” which states the names of various persons with an amount opposite each name — the aggregate being $1,949.25. The defendant tiled the general issue pleas of never promised as alleged and never indebted as alleged, and there follows in the record what is called “Agreed Statement of Facts.” It begins, “It is agreed between the attorneys for the respective parties as follows:” Certain facts are then stated, concluding with “It is agreed that no interest, if any is found due shall be paid after the 3rd Monday in May, 1911, at which date the plaintiff received the full principal sum.” There is nothing in the agreed statement to show that the case was submitted to the Court, hut the docket entries state, “Agreed Statement of Facts, filed and case submitted to the Oourt thereon,” and that subsequently there was “Judgment for defendant and costs.” Ho prayers were offered, and there is nothing in the agreed statement to indicate that any question of law was submitted to the Oourt for its determination.

We find from the arguments and briefs of the attorneys that the principal question supposed to he raised was whether the County Commissioners were liable for interest, and if so from what time it should ⁹ begin to run — the appellant contending that it ran from the date of tbe levy. But under tbe well settled rule in such cases, established by numerous decisions of this Court, we are not authorized to review the decision of the lower Court, for the simple reason that no question of law decided by it has heen brought before us in such way that we would be justified in doing so. An examination of the agreed statement will suggest that several questions of law might have been submitted for the determination of the Court, based on the facts agreed to, hut if it were desired to have this Court review the decision of the lower Court on any or all of them, the parties could have had a case stated, presenting such questions, or prayers could have been offered and the rulings thereon brought before us by a bill of exceptions. If the parties had by witnesses proved the facts set out in this agreed statement it could not be pretended that we would be authorized to review the judgment of the Court rendered -on such facts, and upon what principle can we review it simply because the facts were agreed to ?' As was said by Judge Beyau in Tyson and Rawls v. Western Nat.

Bank, 77 Md. 420 : “When the Court takes the place of a jury the circumstance that the facts were admitted can make no difference; because facts may be admitted