City of Westminster v. Shipley
| Decision Date | 15 March 1888 |
| Citation | 13 A. 365,68 Md. 610 |
| Parties | CITY OF WESTMINSTER v. SHIPLEY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Carroll county.
C T. Reifsneder and Charles E. Fink, for appellant.
Wm. P. Maulsby and H. M. Clabaugh, for appellee.
Unless we determine to reverse the salutary rule of practice stated and acted upon in the case of Wheeler v. Briscoe, 44 Md. 308, and in subsequent cases, this court is not at liberty to review the rulings of the court below, set forth in the bill of exceptions 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 v. Briscoe, this court said that a practice to sign bills of exceptions 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 exceptions 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 2d 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 September following. The signing of the exception was without the 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 affidavit filed, that the counsel for the appellant prepared a bill of exception, and left it with one of the judges on the 23d of July, 1887, and that the judge handed it to one of the counsel for the appellee to be examined. The exception, however, as prepared, was not satisfactory to appellee's counsel; and afterwards, according to the affidavits of appellee's counsel, they agreed in open court, on the 8th of August, 1887, that the bill of exception might be settled and signed, notwithstanding the lapse of the term, if done within 10 days from...
To continue reading
Request your trial