232 ARTICLE 5.

expressly reserves the question of the competency of the witness. Billingslea v.
Ward, 33 Md. 52.

Though the exceptions must be definite, all the reasons in support thereof need
not be stated. Stokes v. Detrick, 75 Md. 267.

The exceptions cannot be filed after decree. Fitzhugh v. McPherson, 9 G. & J. 70.

Exceptions held sufficient. Gardiner v. Hardy, 12 G. & J. 380. Cf. Calvert v.
Carter, 18 Md. 111.

This section inapplicable.

The matters mentioned in this section alone need be excepted to below in order
to be raised in the appellate court. Where the objection is to the remedy, no excep-
tions need be filed. Boteler v. Brookes, 7 G. & J. 155.

The point that the complainants have failed to establish a material allegation
of the bill, may be made on appeal without exceptions being filed below. Dugan v.
Gittings, 3 Gill, 165.

Where an assignee does not assert his claim by petition, but by exceptions to an
auditor's account, no exceptions are required to be filed to bring the matter up on
appeal. Brown v. Thomas, 46 Md. 641.

The objection to a trustee's sale, that the trustee was not present, does not come
under this section. Wicks v. Westcott, 59 Md._280.

This section does not apply where the account is stated in accordance with the
instructions of the appellee in order to present his views, and not in accordance with
the views of the auditor. Anderson v. Tuck, 33 Md. 234; Dennis v. Dennis, 15
Md. 76.

This section has no application to an objection to a petition on the ground that
the matters alleged should have been set up by bill. Boteler v. Beall, 7 G. & J. 398.

This section has no application to depositions taken without notice, and filed after
the evidence has been taken, and after a decree for an account and an account
taken. Stockett v. Jones, 10 G. & J. 279.

Generally.

This section is not in conflict with any provision of the Federal Constitution or
of any law of congress passed in pursuance thereof. This section relates to a matter
of state practice alone, and its construction rests with the state courts. Loeber v.
Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580.

This section will not be construed so as to permit parol evidence, not excepted
to below, to make or revoke a will, particularly in the light of art. 93, secs. 332 and
333. Lowe v. Whitridge, 105 Md. 184.

Where the contention is that while the plaintiff's proper remedy is in equity, he
has been given a decree which is different from the one to which he may be
entitled, or that while the bill is adequate to secure the plaintiff's interests, it is an
insufficient basis for the particular relief decreed, this section applies, and if the bill
was not objected to below, no question as to its sufficiency can arise on appeal.
A clause in the answer reserving all lawful objections to errors in the form and sub-
stance of the bill, does not meet the requirements of this section. Equitable Ice Co.
v. Moore, 127 Md. 324.

Where a plaintiff files a petition against administrators pendente lite for the
appointment of a receiver, an order being passed accordingly, and some six weeks
later files a petition asking that the order be rescinded, but then abandons the
petition last mentioned and enters an appeal from the order, such appeal is, in view
of art. 16, sec. 4, and of this section, premature. Warfield v. Valentine, 130 Md. 595

Under this section and sec. 41, where a receiver is appointed upon bill and answer
(consenting thereto), and one who is not an original defendant is subsequently made
a defendant upon his own petition, he cannot in the court of appeals raise the
question of the sufficiency of the bill; he should have first applied to the lower
court for a rescission of the order appointing a receiver. Under sec. 31, when a
receiver is appointed upon bill alone, the court of appeals in reviewing the order is
confined to the case made by the bill and exhibits. Carrington v. Basshor Co., 121
Md. 75; Warfield v. Valentine, 130 Md. 595.

While, if no exceptions are filed or the evidence is not in some proper way
objected to at the hearing, a decree may be based on the evidence alone and the
defendant cannot upon appeal rely on the inadmissibility of the evidence under the
bill, the plaintiff cannot rely on the silence of the defendant for any material allega-
tion as an admission of its truth, but must prove it. Effect of an answer; if insuffi-
cient it should be excepted to. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Minis, 120 Md. 504.