134 court of appeals of maryland

Rule 3 of 1806, continuances except by the consent
of both counsel and the court were limited to the
end of the fourth court, or term, but the limita-
tion appears to have been lifted without difficulty.
Fortunately a succession of legislative efforts had
stopped abatements by death, so common in the
eighteenth century, while the cases thus rested on
the docket.⁶

In 1827, the court on the Western Shore began
a practice of arranging cases in classes, by coun-
ties, for the order of argument; thereafter, those
under rule argument from the counties of St.
Mary's, Charles, Prince George's, Calvert and
Montgomery were to be taken up ''first. In 1830,
Washington County cases were placed in order
after those from Montgomery County, and those
from Frederick County were given the next posi-
tion in 183S. In 1841 the use of the classification
was limited to the December Term of court, which
was the crowded term, and a year later, cases from
Allegany and Washington Counties were classified
together so as to come on for argument after
Christmas. Frederick County cases were in 1845
deferred until after Christmas. On the Eastern
Shore the cases to be heard were so few in num-
ber, rarely over five at a term, and often none, that
classification for the order of argument was use-
less, and was not resorted to. An act of 1828, chap-
ter 182, provided that only the judge residing in
the second judicial district need attend at the
November term on the Eastern Shore. In 1831,

6. Acts 1785, ch. 80, sec. 1; 1806, ch. 90, sec. 11; 1815, ch. 149, sec. 5.
And see Roche v. Johnson, 2 Harris & Johnson, 37, note; Owings
v. Owings, 3 Gill & Johnson, 1.