234 ARTICLE 5.

That the question of jurisdiction was argued will not suffice; it must have been
specially taken by exception and passed on by the lower court. Melvin v. Aldridge,
81 Md. 657. And see Hubbard v. Jarrell, 23 Md. 80.

This section applies only to defendants who have been brought into a regular
chancery proceeding and who submit to the jurisdiction without question. Wicks v.
Westcott, 59 Md. 279. And see Pierson v. Trail, 1 Md. 143; Carrington v. Basshor,
121 Md. 75.

This section applies to defendants only. Pierson v. Trail, 1 Md. 143; Carrington v.
Basshor, 121 Md. 75.

The lower court may sua sponte refuse to grant relief on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. This section is confined in its operation to the appellate court. Dunnock
v. Dunnock, 3 Md. Ch. 149.

If the objection to the jurisdiction is not properly taken, the court will entertain
the suit, unless it be in cases in which no circumstances whatever could give the
court jurisdiction. Shryock v. Morris, 15 Md. 77.

This section applied. Cherbonnier v. Goodwin, 79 Md. 61; Snowden v. Reid. 67
Md. 135; Biddinger v. Wiland, 67 Md. 363; Estep v. Mackey, 52 Md. 596; Williams
v. Lee, 47 Md. 324; Edes v. Garey, 46 Md. 36; Loeber v. Laughar, 45 Md. 482;
Ashton v. Ashton, 35 Md. 503; Gough v. Manning, 26 Md. 361; Stallings v. Stal-
lings, 22 Md. 45; Bratt v. Bratt, 21 Md. 583; Knight v. Brawner, 14 Md. 6; Teackle
v. Gibson, 8 Md. 84; O'Neill v. Cole, 4 Md. 123; Farmers, etc., Bank v. Wayman,
5 Gill, 356.

Influence of this section upon the lower court. Gough v. Crane, 3 Md. Ch. 135.

See notes to sec. 40.

An. Code, sec. 38. 1904, sec. 38. 1888, sec. 36. 1818, ch. 193, sec. 14. 1832, ch. 302, sec. 6.

42. If it shall appear or be shown to the court of appeals that the sub-
stantial merits of a ca.use will not be determined by the reversing or affirm-
ing of any decree or order that may have been passed by a court of equity,
or that the purposes of justice will be advanced by permitting further pro-
ceedings in the cause, either through amendment of any of the pleadings
or the introduction of further evidence, making additional parties, or
otherwise, then the court of appeals, instead of passing a final decree or
order, shall order the cause to be remanded to the court from whose decision
the appeal was taken, and thereupon such further proceedings shall there
be had by .amendment of pleadings, or further testimony to be taken, or
otherwise, as shall be necessary for determining the cause upon its merits,
as if no appeal had been taken in the cause, and the decree or order ap-
pealed from had not been passed, save only that the order or decree passed
by the court of appeals shall be conclusive as to the points finally decided
thereby. And it shall be the duty of the court of appeals, in its order re-
manding the cause, to express the reasons for the remanding, and also to
determine and declare the opinion of the court on all points which may have
been made before the said court, or which may be presented by the record,

Cases remanded.

Cases remanded that proof may be taken: Peoples v. Ault, 125 Md. 698; Ibid.,
128 Md. 404; Cacy v. Slay, 127 Md. 501; Meinhardt v. Meinhardt, 117 Md. 429;
Tobin v. Rogers, 121 Md. 253; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Silberstein, 121 Md. 421 (con-
tinuing injunction); Bliss v. Bliss, 133 Md. 77; Dimpfel v. Wilson, 107 Md. 341;
Barroll v. Farman, 88 Md. 201; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 66 Md. 575; Hagerty v. Mann,
56 Md. 529; Gechter v. Gechter, 51 Md. 190; Brown v. Thomas, 46 Md. 641; Bull v.
Pyle, 41 Md. 425; Johnson v. Robertson, 31 Md. 492; Stump v. Henry, 6 Md. 210;
Winchester v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 4 Md. 242; Buchanan v. Lorman, 3 Gill, 82;
Darnall v. Hill, 12 G. & J. 398; Harris v. Harris, 6 G. & J. 115.

Cases remanded that pleadings may be amended and proof taken: Glenn v.
Clark, 53 Md. 607; Shreve v. Shreve, 43 Md. 403; Campbell v. Lowe, 9 Md. 509;
Berry v. Episcopal Church, 7 Md. 581; Thomas v. Doub, 1 Md. 328; Owings v.