132 APPEALS AND ERRORS. [ART. 5

1904. art. 5, sec. 3. 1888, art. 5, sec. 3. 1860, art. 5, sec. 4. 1845, ch. 7.

3. Any party to a writ of mandamus may appeal; and petitions
assigning errors may be filed in civil or criminal cases, in lieu of the
formal writs of error heretofore issued in this State, in cases where
writs of error were formerly allowed.

To warrant an appeal, there must be a final judgment granting the writ
of mandamus or dismissing the petition. Watts v. Port Deposit, 46 Md. 502-

If the petition assigning error does not show that the matter complained
of was passed on by the lower court, the assignment of errors must be
quashed. Ecker v. First National Bank, 62 Md. 519.

Where the court deems further proceedings proper, a procedendo may
be awarded in mandamus cases. Harwood v. Marshall, 9 Md. 108.

See sec. 44.

Ibid. sec. 4. 1888, art 5, sec. 4. Rule 1.

4. Formal writs of error shall, in all cases, be dispensed with, and
the party applying to have the record removed, as upon writ of error,
in cases where by law writs of error are allowable, shall, by brief peti-
tion, addressed to the court in which the case was tried, plainly desig-
nate the points or questions of law by the decision of which he feels
aggrieved; which application, so to remove the record, shall be allowed
as of right; and no point or question not thus plainly designated in such
application shall be heard or determined by the court of appeals.

An assignment of error to the effect merely that a demurrer was sus-
tained, is insufficient; what the assignment should set out, and what
matters of fact cannot be made the subject of an assignment of error.
McCaddin v State. 100 Md. 670: State v. Norris, 70 Md. 91; State v. Scar-
borough, 55 Md. 345.

An assignment of error will be dismissed if the errors assigned are
subjects of demurrer, or in arrest of judgment Davis v. State, 39 Md. 385.

This section is not repealed by the act of 1892, ch. 506, and still applies
where no exceptions are reserved. Avirett v. State, 76 Md. 516; State v.
Floto, 81 Md. 602.

No point or question not plainly designated can be determined by the
court of appeals. McCaddin v. State. 100 Md. 670; Mitchell v. State, 82
Md. 532; Hearn v. Gould. 51 Md. 319. And see Johns v. State, 55 Md. 353.

This section complied with. Gabelein v. Plaenker, 36 Md. 64.

As to appeals in criminal cases, see also sections 80 and 81.

Ibid, sec. 5. 1888, art. 5. sec. 5. 1860, art. 5, sec. 5. 1832, ch. 208.

5. In cases of issues sent from the orphans' court or a court of
equity to a court of law to be tried, exceptions may be taken to any
opinion given by the court before whom such issues shall be tried, and
an appeal may be taken on such exceptions; and such appeal, while
pending, shall stay all proceedings in the orphans' court touching the
matter of such issues."

This section does not qualify or restrict the powers of a law court; it
merely gives a right of exception and appeal as in other cases at law.
Waters v. Waters. 26 Md. 73. See also. Price v. Taylor. 21 Md. 366.

The entry of an appeal stays rhe proceedings in the orphans' court
whether that court knows of the appeal or not. An order passed by the
orphans' court in ignorance of the appeal, should be at once rescinded.
Berry v. Safe Deposit Co.. 93 Md. 243.

Cited but not construed in Goodman v. Wineland, 61 Md. 455; Barth v.
Rosenfeld. 36 Md 615: Van Ness r. Van Ness. 6. How. 62.

As to a stay of proceedings in the orphans' court, see sec. 64.

As to issues from the orphans' court, see art. 93, sections 245, 253 and 255.