206 ARTICLE 5.

The jurisdiction of the court of appeals is defined and limited, and cannot be
extended beyond those limits. Wylie v. Johnson, 29 Md. 298.

From a judgment by the party in whose favor it was rendered, no appeal lies.
Coates v. Mackey, 56 Md. 420.

This section applied. Davidson v. State, 77 Md. 395; Rawlings v. State, 1 Md. 127.

See also, secs. 43 to 56, and notes to sec. 48.

An. Code, sec. 3. 1904, sec, 3. 1888, sec. 3. 1845, ch. 7.

3. Any party to a writ of mandamus may appeal; and petitions assign-
ing 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 man-
damus 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. 48, and notes thereto.

An. Code, sec. 4. 1904, sec. 4. 1888, 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 petition, addressed
to the court in- which the case was tried, plainly designate the points or
questions of law by the decision of which he feels aggrieved; which appli-
cation 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.

A special exception to a prayer on the ground merely that there is no evidence
legally sufficient to support the same, is defective. Havens v. Reach, 139 Md. 484.

An assignment of error to the effect merely that a demurrer was sustained, is in-
sufficient; 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. Scarborough, 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This section is not repealed by the act of 1892, ch.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 secs. 86 and 87.

An. Code, sec. 5. 1904, sec. 5. 1888, 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 referred to in construing certain provisions of the act of 1916, ch. 625,
changing the time within which Bills of Exceptions in Baltimore city must be
signed. Court may extend time for signing Bills of Exceptions upon petition assign-
ing reasons; review by court of appeals. Waiver. Motion to dismiss appeal over-
ruled. Wegefarth v. Weissner, 132 Md. 599.