114 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND.

stricken out (changed by a local law in Baltimore city). Desche v. Giles 56
Md. 137.

Any party capable of being sued and of appearing in person or by attorney, may
assent to the submission of a case to a court without a jury; hence such assent
of an attorney for a lunatic is binding. Cross v. Kent, 32 Md. 584.

This section referred to in uphplding certain rules of the circuit court for Prince
George's county dealing with jury and non-jury cases. Gambrill v. Parker, 31 Md. 5.

Removal of cases.

The act of 1874, ch. 94, providing that the order of removal might be struck out
unless the party making the suggestion pays the cost of the record within sixty
days after such order and causes the record to be transmitted within the same
period, held unconstitutional under this section. Intent of this section; it has been
liberally construed. Hoyer v. Colton, 43 Md. 422. And see Knee v. City Passenger
Ry. Co., 87 Md. 632.

Where a first trial miscarries because of the failure of the jury to agree, the case
may be removed at any time before the jury is sworn at the second trial. Where
a case has been removed, it will not be remanded because the affidavit for removal
was made by the next friend of the infant suing in the name of the state; a next
friend is a "party" within the meaning of this section. Deford v. State, use
Keyser, 30 Md. 196.

Since the amendment of 1874, ch. 364, a party making affidavit of removal has
not the right to elect that the case shall be sent to some court in a different cir-
cuit; the matter is within the discretion of the court from which the case is
removed. The removal of a case from the court of common pleas to the superior
court of Baltimore city is a removal " to some other court " within the meaning
of this section. De Murgiondo v. Frazier, 63 Md. 95; Weiskittle v. State, use of
Samuel, 58 Md. 155.

This section confers a discretion upon the court to which application for removal is
made as to the court to which the c'ase shall be sent. Discretion held not to have
been abused. Blick v. Cockins, 131 Md. 628.

This section gives the circuit court no power to remove causes pending on
appeal. Charles County v. Wilmer, 131 Md. 181.

An equity cause may not be removed to another equity court under this section.
Act of 1920, ch. 425, sec. 322A, directing the removal of equity cases in Baltimore
city, is in violation of sec. 32 of this art. 4. Wilmer v. Savings & Bldg. Assn.,
141 Md. 241.

A case may not be removed after a judgment by default has been entered, or
pending the action of the court on a motion for judgment by default. Schaible v.
Home Ins. Co., 132 Md. 682.

This section referred to in holding that art. 5, sec. 27 of the Code does not apply
to criminal .prosecutions, nor does it show an intention to enlarge the right of
removal. History of this section; classification of cases therein. Fountain v. State,
135 Md. 89.

Where a case is removed from one court of Baltimore city to another, the fact
that it may come to trial before the same judge is immaterial, since the object
of the constitutional right of removal was to enable parties to get rid of any local
prejudice which might affect a jury. Chappel Chemical, etc., Co. v. Sulphur Mine
Co., 85 Md. 684.

The jurisdiction of the court is not ousted by the suggestion and affidavit of
removal; it may be withdrawn and the case proceeded with at any time before
the order of removal is passed. Manly v. State, 7 Md. 146.

The right of removal of a case can be surrendered or waived; such right held to
have been waived. Caledonian Fire Co. v. Traub, 86 Md. 93.

A case pending in the circuit court on appeal from a justice of the peace may
not be removed under this section. Hoshall v. Hoffacker, 11 Md. 363; Geekie v.
Harbourd, 52 Md. 461.

Proceedings for the forfeiture of corporate franchises for abuse, etc., held not
to be removable under this section—see art. 23, sec. 98, of the An. Code, et seq.
Bel Air Social, etc., Club v. State, 74 Md. 300.

This section does not embrace issues framed at the instance of a creditor in
insolvency proceedings. Trayhern v. Hamill, 53 Md. 91.

Where a case is removed from Baltimore city to Baltimore county, this section
(as it stood in the Constitution of 1851) is compiled with. Design of this section;
it will be construed liberally. Wright v. Hammer, 5 Md. 375.. And see State v.
Shillingen, 6 Md. 450; Griffin v. Leslie, 20 Md. 18; Price v. Nesbit, 29 Md. 266.