APPEALS AND ERRORS 295

Conduct of court and counsel not objected to at time cannot be considered on appeal
Brawner v Hooper, 151 Md 594

Question of variance not raised at trial cannot be considered on appeal White v
Parks, 154 Md 202

A plea of res judicata filed by defense not considered on appeal, as it had not been
ruled upon by the trial court State v Coblentz, 169 Md 159

Question of misjoinder not raised or decided in lower court cannot be considered in
Court of Appeals Mylander v Page, 162 Md 261

Objection to sufficiency of voucher or cause of action not made in trial court cannot
be considered in Court of Appeals Obrecht v Ensor, 162 Md 396

A granted prayer is not reviewable, as permitting a finding of negligence without
finding of sufficient facts from which negligence could be determined, in the absence
of any objection to the prayer for this reason in the trial court B & O R R Co v
State, 169 Md 355

Plaintiff, having failed to object to continuance of trial because of mistaken statement
by opposing counsel, later corrected by him, until after losing case, cannot use incident
in support of motion for new trial Lynch v Baltimore, 169 Md 633

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 proceedings or judg-
ment 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 confined
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

Where two are sued, on a joint liability, and one confesses and judgment is rendered
below against the other, the objection that there should have been a joint judgment
or none, cannot be raised on appeal Barker v Ayres, 5 Md 202

Point held not have been presented to the lower court, hence it could not be con-
sidered on appeal Williams v N Y Life Ins Co , 122 Md 145

Questions sufficiently shown to have been passed on below, to permit the appellate
court to consider them Edelen v State, 4 G & J 281, Newcomer v Keedy, 9 Gill, 269,
Cushwa v Cushwa, 9 Gill, 248, Brice v Randall, 7 G & J 352, Bosley v Chesapeake
Ins Co , 3 G & J 463

Under thia section the irregularity of a verdict will not be considered on appeal, un-
less brought up by a motion in arrest of judgment Standard Co v O'Bnen, 88 Md 341

The first clause of this section applied Heil v Linck, 170 Md 654, Kelly v Monte-
bello Co , 141 Md 205; Buck v Brady, 110 Md 577, Hamburger v Baltimore, 106 Md
483; Baltimore v Austin, 95 Md 93, Muir v Beauchamp, 91 Md 658, Worcester v
Ryckman, 91 Md 39, Lewis v Topman, 90 Md 306, Mitchell v State, 82 Md 531,
Burnett v Bealmear, 79 Md 40, Thorne v Fox, 67 Md 74, Jackson v Salisbury, 66
Md 459, McCollough v Biedler, 66 Md 283, Ecker v First National Bank, 62 Md 519,
Lynn v B & O R R Co, 60 Md 416, McKew v Duvall, 45 Md 501, Third National
Bank v Boyd, 44 Md 63, Davis v State, 39 Md 386; Gabelein v Plaenker, 36 Md 64,
First National Bank v Jaggers, 31 Md 52; Dorsey v Garey, 30 Md 499; Horner v
O'Laughhn, 29 Md 470, Hutton v Padgett, 26 Md 231, Kunkel v Spooner, 9 Md 462,
Manning v Hays, 6 Md 10, Tyson v Shueey, 5 Md 552, Coates v Sangston, 5 Md
131, Bridendolph v Zeller, 5 Md 63, Cushwa v Cushwa, 5 Md 54, Morgan v Briscoe,
4 Md 272, Middlekauff v Smith, 1 Md 337, Graham v Sangston, 1 Md 66, Milburn v
State, 1 Md 26, Tuck v Boone, 8 Gill, 189, Carter v Cross, 7 Gill, 46, Sullivan v
Violett, 6 Gill, 190, Schleigh v Hagerstown Bank 4 Gill, 312, Bulht v Musgrave, 3 Gill,
48, Leopard v Chesapeake, etc , Canal Co , 1 Gill, 228; Keefer v Mattingsly, 1 Gill,
186, Wolfe v Hauser, 1 Gill, 92, Gray v Crook, 12 G & J 236; Abell v Hams, 11
G & J 372, Burgess v State, 11 G & J 68, State v Turner, 8 G & J 133, Nesbitt v
Dallam, 7 G & J 510, Syles v Hatton, 6 G & J 136; Grahame v Harris, 5 G & J 494,
Sasscer v Walker, 5 G & J 110, Davis v Leah, 2 G & J 307, Laporte Corp v Cement
Corp 164 Md 645, Ice Machinery Corp v Sachs, 167 Md 123. Legum v State, 167
Md 352, Kirschgessner v State, 174 Md 202, Metropolitan Life Ins Co v Neikirk,
175 Md 170; Baltimore v Peabody Institute, 175 Md 189

Prior to the act of 1825, ch 117, it was the duty of the appellate court to notice
all errors and objections apparent upon the record Mundell v Perry, 2 G & J 207

Generally.

The opinion of the trial court is no part of the record, and there being no bill of
exceptions or agreed statement, the judgment must be affirmed Methodist Church v
Browne, 39 Md 160