APPEALS AND EEEOES. 211

mers, 110 Md. 121; Dexter v. McDonald, 103 Md. 398; Mylander v. Beimschla, 102
Md. 692; Newmau v. McComas, 43 Md. 70; Gent v. Ensor, 41 Md. 24.

If a prayer is objected to on the ground that it submits a question of law to the
jury, a special exception must be taken. Rasst v. Morris, 135 Md. 259; Cushwa v.
Williamsport, 117 Md. 314; Sturtevant v. Dugan, 106 Md. 615; New Windsor v.
Stocksdale, 95 Md. 214; Eckenrode v. The Chemical Co., 55 Md. 66; Stockham v.
Stockham, 32 Md. 209; Higgins v. Carlton, 28 Md. 140.

A special exception to a prayer because it "assumes certain facts," is too general.
Shriver v. State, 65 Md. 284. See also B. & 0. R. R, Co. v. Mali, 66 Md. 53.

A special exception to a prayer6 on the ground merely that there is no evidence "
legally sufficient to support the same, is defective. Havens v. Reach, 139 Md. 484.

To be considered, special exceptions must be incorporated in the Bill of Excep-
tions. Albert v. State, 66 Md. 334.

But the special exception need not be in writing nor form the subject of a sepa-
rate bill of exceptions, provided it appears from the record that it was duly made
and passed upon. Moses v. Alien, 91 Md. 53; Davidson Co. v. Miller Co., 122
Md. 134.

Jurisdiction.

Though the question of jurisdiction is not raised below, it may be raised on ap-
peal. Armstrong v. Hagerstown, 32 Md. 56; White v. Solomonsky, 30 Md. 588;
Horner v. O'Laughlin, 29 Md. 470; U. S. Express Co. v. Hurlock, 120 Md. 111.

But in a proceeding before a justice of the peace under art. 52, sec. 8, the question
of jurisdiction on the ground that title to land is involved, must be raised before
the justice in order to be considered on appeal. Shipler v. Broom, 62 Md. 320.

If the lower court is without jurisdiction, though that question was not raised
below, its action may be reviewed by the court of appeals, as this section does not
apply. Close v. So. Md. Agr. Assn., 134 Md. 633.

Questions not raised below, not considered on appeal.

Where no objection to a bond is made in the lower court, a motion to quash
the writ of replevin on the ground that the bond is not that of the plaintiff, must
be denied; cases where the court is exercising a special statutory jurisdiction, dis-
tinguished. Burrier v. Cunningham Piano Co., 135 Md. 144.

Under this section and sec. 86, where no question is raised below by motion in
arrest of judgment or otherwise, a new trial will not be granted because a verdict
did not discriminate between the count of an indictment charging robbery and that
charging receiving stolen goods. Novak v. State, 139 Md. 542.

Whether the failure of a prayer to leave to the jury the question of whether a
party acted as the agent of another, be regarded as an assumption of fact or as the
omission of a material fact, no advantage can be taken of it on appeal if no similar
objection was made below. Cases reviewed. Lewis v. Schlichter Co., 137 Md. 222.

The failure to file a replication may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
Query, whether this question was raised by a general objection to evidence so as to
call attention to the pleadings. Errors and irregularities waived. Jenkins v. Spedden,
136 Md. 644.

Although a prayer was defective in permitting a verdict against both defendants
for the negligent act of one of them, no objection having been made to the prayer
on that ground in the lower court, the question cannot be raised on appeal; judg-
ment affirmed. Buckey v. White, 137 Md. 131.

Since a particular defence to a recovery on a fire insurance policy was not passed
on by the lower court, it cannot be considered upon appeal. German Fire Ins. Co. v.
Clarke, 116 Md. 624. And see Mitchell v. State, 115 Md. 367.

The regularity and sufficiency of attachment proceedings are open to inquiry,
although no motion was made in the lower court to quash or set aside the proceed-
ings or judgment. Mears v. Adreon, 31 Md. 235; McCoy v. Boyle, 10 Md. 396.

An attachment may be quashed by the appellate court on other grounds than
those set up below. Mayer v. Soyster, 30 Md. 403; Boarman v. Patterson, 1 Gill, 381.

On a motion to set aside an inquisition and strike out a judgment thereon, the
court of appeals cannot consider an objection not made below. Stansbury v. Keady,
29 Md. 369.

Though the appellate court is confined to points considered below, it is not con-
fined to the reasons given by the lower court. Sothoron v. Weems, 3 G. & J. 441;
Elliott v. Peterson, 4 Md. 485; Parker v. Sedwick, 4 Gill, 318.