APPEALS AND EEROES. 245

such cases. Stonesifer v. Shriver, 100 Md. 27; Linthicum v. Polk, 93 Md. 91; Hignutt,
v. Cranor, 62 Md. 219; Abbott v. Golibart, 39 Md. 555; Worthington v. Herron,
39 Md. 146.

On appeal from the orphans' court, exceptions to the admissibility of evidence, or
to the competency of witnesses, may be insisted on in the court of appeals though
not taken below. Dennison v. Dennison, 35 Md. 381.

Sec. 10 of this article does not apply to appeals from the orphans' court. Cover
v. Stockdale, 16 Md. 1.

While the orphans' court is given a discretionary power in certain matters, it can-
not exercise that discretion arbitrarily. Macgill v. McEvoy, 85 Md. 291.

It has not been the practice to exclude Sundays in computing time under this
section. American Tobacco Co. v. Strickling, 88 Md. 510.

This section referred to in construing art. 93, secs. 3 and 251—see notes thereto.
Stake v. Stake, 138 Md. 55.

As to appeals in case of issues sent from the orphans' court to a court of law, see
sec. 5.

As to special hearings, see sec. 48.

Cf. art. 93, secs. 254, 265 and 323.

An. Code, sec. 61. 1904, sec. 61. 1888, sec. 59. 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 15, sec. 18.

65. If the decree, order, decision or judgment shall have been given or
made on a summary proceeding, and on the testimony of witnesses, the
party shall not be allowed to appeal, unless he shall immediately notify
his intention and request that the testimony be reduced to writing, and
in such case the depositions shall be at the cost of the party in the first
instance reduced to writing.

This section applies to summary, and not to plenary proceedings. Biddison v.
Mosely, 57 Md. 92; Stonesifer v. Shriver, 100 Md. 27.

A person availing himself of this section becomes a party to the record. Cecil v.
Cecil, 19 Md. 72.

After judgment, it is not permissible to recall the witnesses and have the testi-
mony then reduced to writing as an original proceeding. Distinction drawn between
plenary and summary proceedings. Cannon v. Crook, 32 Md. 484.

Where testimony is taken on both sides and reduced to writing, it not appearing
at whose instance but without objection, this section is sufficiently complied with.
Valentine v. Strong, 20 Md. 526.

It not appearing what testimony, if any, was taken, the appeal will not be dis-
missed under this section. Wrightson v. Tydings, 94 Md. 361.

Appeal dismissed because this section was not complied with. Cox v. Chalk,
57 Md. 571; Bowling v. Estep, 56 Md. 566; Cecil v. Harrington, 18 Md. 512. And
see Stonesifer v. Shriver, 100 Md. 27.

An. Code, sec. 62. 1904, sec. 62. 1888, sec. 60. 1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 2, sec. 11;
sub-ch. 15, sec. 18. 1842, ch. 27. Rule 15.

66. All appeals allowed from orders or decrees of the orphans' court
to the court of appeals shall be taken and entered within thirty days after
such order or decree appealed from; and the register of wills shall make
out and transmit to the court of ap/peals, under his hand and the seal of
his office, a transcript of the record of proceedings in such case, within
thirty days after the appeal prayed; but in such transcript no paper or
proceeding, not necessary to the determination of the appeal, shall be
incorporated.

An application for a revocation of letters need not be filed within thirty days
from the grant of such letters, but within the time, after knowledge of the order
granting letters, provided by law within which an original application for letters
may be made. Burgess v. Boswell, 139 Md. 680.

An appeal from an order admitting a will to probate will not be considered unless
taken within thirty days after its date. The propriety of an order cannot be deter-
mined where the facts upon which the orphans' court passed the order are not in
the record. Wilson, in re Martin, 135 Md. 197.