APPEALS AND EEEOES. 219

Case remanded under this section in order that by proper amendment, it may
be tried upon its merits. McCurdy v. Jessop, 126 Md. 327.

Case remanded under this section, so that narr, may be amended; appellant to
pay costs. Rieger & Co. v. Knight, 128 Md. 201.

Where the lower court has not awarded the writ of mandamus but merely a judg-
ment for costs, the appellate court has the power under this section to award the
writ without remanding the case. Weber v. Zimmerman, 23 Md. 55.

This section vests the court with discretionary power to remand a case to the
lower court for trial upon its merits. Creager v. Hooper, 83 Md. 504; Milske v.
Steiner, etc., Co., 103 Md. 251.

This section indicates a design to give to the appellate court more extended con-
trol. Lester v. Hardesty, 29 Md. 57 (dissenting opinion).

This section gives the appellate court no power to modify criminal sentences, or
to direct inferior courts to modify them. McDonald v. State, 45 Md. 97. (See,
however, sec. 87, passed to give the court such power.)

For a case holding that the defendant had been given ample notice of a trial fol-
lowing the remanding of a case under this section, see Weber v. Fickey, 52 Md. 511.

Cited but not construed in Stewart Taxi Co. v. Getz, 118 Md. 176; United Rys Co.
v. Corbin, 109 Md. 56; State v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 48 Md. 81.

An. Code, sec. 22A. 1914, ch. 149. 1914, ch. 248.

25.1 If it appears to the Court of Appeals that a reversible error affects
a severable item, or part only of the matters in controversy, the Court may
direct final judgment as to the remaining parts or items thereof, and may
direct a new trial as to the said severable part or item only.

A judgment reversed and a new trial awarded as to the interest item and affirmed
as to the remaining amount, under this section. Bucher v. Federal B. B. Club,
130 Md. 644.

Judgment reversed without a new trial under this section as to certain items on
which the jury found for the plaintiff, and affirmed as to the remainder of the
judgment. Middendorf, etc., Co. v. Milburn Co., 137 Md. 600.

Judgment of court of appeals modified so as to comply with this section. Strath-
more Min. Co. v. Bayard Co., 139 Md. 375.

This section applied. Roberts & Co. v. Robinson, 141 Md. 55.

1920, ch. 229, sec. 22B.

26. In all cases in which there are more than one defendant in a Court
of Law and judgment has been entered up in favor of all the defendants
or against all the defendants or in favor of one or more defendants and
against one or more defendants, if on appeal, it shall appear to the Court
of Appeals that said judgment should be affirmed as to all said defendants
or should be reversed as to all said defendants or should be affirmed as to
one or more of said defendants and should be reversed as to one or more of
said defendants, then, the said Court of Appeals may so direct.

This section was adopted subsequent to the decisions in Firror v. Taylor, 116 Md.
69, and Ewing v. Rider, 125 Md. 149. This section applied. Myers v. Shipley, 140
Md...382.

Judgment reversed without a new trial as to one defendant and affirmed as to
the other defendants, under this section. McNamara v. Pabst, 137 Md. 475;
Polluck v. Watts, 142 Md. 407.

An. Code, sec. 23. 1904, sec. 23. 1888, sec. 21. 1819, ch. 149.

27. When, on the reversal of a judgment, a new trial shall be awarded,
the court of appeals, upon suggestion in writing by either of the parties,
supported by affidavits or other proper evidence that a fair and impartial

1 The acts of 1914, chs. 149 and 248, enacted sec. 22A in the same language.