ART. 5] APPEALS FROM COURTS OF LAW. 135

The first clause of this section does not apply to cases of demurrer,
motions in arrest of Judgment, exceptions to awards, and appeals from
officers of registration. Baltimore v. Austin. 95 Md. 93; Muir v. Beauchamp,
91 Md. 658; Cox v. Brynn, 81 Md. 290; Bragunier v. Penu, 79 Md. 246;
Shaeffer v. Gilbert, 73 Md. 67; Smith v. State, 66 Md. 219; Keller v.
Stevens, 66 Md. 134; Grove v. Swartz, 45 Md. 228; Smith v. Wood, 31 Md.
301; Price v. Thomas. 4 Md. 521; State v. Greenwell, 4 G. & J. 416.

The first clause of this section is not applicable where the case was
tried below upon an agreed statement providing that the court was to
give judgment for the plaintiff or defendant, according to whether it found
the defendant owed the taxes claimed, the agreement reserving the right
of appeal to both parties. B., C. & A. Ry. Co. v Wicomico County, 93 Md.
127. And see Keller v. State, 12 Md. 328.

The first clause of this section is not applicable to motions to quash the
scire facias issued upon a mechanic's lien claim, for defects apparent on its
face. Baker v. Winter, 15 Md. 9.

Pleadings, prayers and evidence.

If inadmissable evidence comes hi without objection, the question of its
admissibility cannot be raised in the court of appeals. Sentman v. Gamble,
69 Md. 305; Atwell v. Grant, 11 Md. 106; Phelan v. Crosby, 2 Gill, 462;
Hannon v. State, 2 Gill, 47.

A prayer relying upon a failure of evidence must set it up specifically.
Reier v. Strau's, 54 Md. 291; Dorsey v. Harris, 22 Md. 88; Hatton v.
McClish, 6 Md. 417.

Prayers held too general. Acker v. McGaw, 106 Md. 559; Shipley v.
Shilling, 66 Md. 565; Kinsey v. Minnick, 43 Md. 119; Casey v. Suter, 36 Md.
5; Fel's Point Say's Institute v. Weedon, 18 Md. 328: Hatton v. McClish. 18
Md. 416; Kent v. Holliday, 17 Md. 395; Warner v. Hardy, 6 Md. 540; Penn
v. Flock, 3 G. & J. 376; Cook v. Duvall, 9 Gill, 461; Wheeler v. State, 7 Gill
344; Warfield v. Davidson, 8 G. & J. 214; Mitchell v. Dall, 4 G. J. 370.

Prayers held not to general. Yingling r. Kohlhass, 18 Md. 162; Walter v.
Alexander. 2 Gill, 212. And see Hatton v. McClish, 6 Md. 417; Stewart v.
Spedden, 5 Md. 444.

A prayer reading, "that so far as claim of compensation" for certain
services "is concerned, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover," is against
the intent of the act of 1825, ch. 117. Chipman v. Stansbury, 16 Md. 159.

A prayer must refer to the pleadings in order to raise a question of the
pleadings. South Baltimore Co. v. Muhlbach. 69 Md. 406; Baltimore Bldg.
Ass'n v. Grant, 41 Md. 569; Dorsey v. Dashiell, 1 Md. 207; Western Bank v.
Kyle, 6 Gill, 352. See also, Ward r. Schlosser, 111 Md. 532; Home, etc.,
Society, r. Roberson, 100 Md. 88; Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Wllkinson, 30 Md.
230; Stockton v. Frey, 4 Gill, 421.

When a prayer refers to the pleadings, the sufficiency of the declaration
may be inquired into. Object of this section. Ward v. Schlosser, 111 Md.
534.

A variance between the allegations and the proof must be set up by
objections to the evidence or by a properly framed prayer. Straus v.
Young. 36 Md. 255. See also, Bull v. Schuberth, 2 Md. 56; Pennsylvania,
etc., Co. v. Dandridge. 8 G. & J. 248.

In ruling on matters of evidence, the lower court necessarily looks to
the pleadings, and hence the ruling is deemed to have been made with
reference to the pleadings, and the point to have been passed upon below
so that the court of appeals may consider it. B. & O. R. R. Co., v. State, 41
Md. 297; Marshall v. Haney, 9 Gill, 259; Leopard v. Chesapeake, etc., Canal
Co. 1 Gill, 228.

Special exceptions.

If a prayer is objected to because there is no evidence to support it, or
because it assumes facts, a special exception must be reserved. Sturtevant
v. Dugan, 106 Md. 615; Gunther v. Dranbauer. 86 Md. 9; Scarlett v. Acad-
emy of Music, 40 Md. 153; Stillman v. Dougherty. 44 Md. 385; Gent v. Ensor,
41 Md. 24; Baltimore Bldg. Assn. v. Grant. 41 Md. 568; Stansbury v. Foglej
37 Md. 379; Morrison v. Hammond, 27 Md. 616.