Wheeler v. State ex rel. Bateman

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Wheeler v. State ex rel. Bateman

7 Gill 343

DecidedDecember 15, 1848

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Gill 343 (Wheeler v. State ex rel. Bateman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wheeler v. State ex rel. Bateman, 7 Gill 343 (Md. 1848).

Pincite

Opinion

Dorsey, C., J.,

delivered'the opinion' of this court.

The only question presented for our determination by the record before us, (and' that, after the repeated decisions of this court, is no question at all,) is, were the county court right in refusing to grant the defendant’s'prayer, as stated in his bill of exceptions, “ that the plaintiffs were not erititled to recover?” So uniform and consistent have been the adjudications of this court since the passage of the act of 1852, chap. 117, that for a [345]*345county court’s refusing to grant such a prayer, its judgment cannot be reversed on appeal to this court, that we do not deem it necessary to give the names of the cases in which such adjudications have been made.

The numerous other' questions, which have been argued at great length by the appellant’s counsel, not being presented by the record for our consideration, it would be out of place in this court to express any opinion upon them.

The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dorsey, C., J.,

delivered'the opinion' of this court.

The only question presented for our determination by the record before us, (and' that, after the repeated decisions of this court, is no question at all,) is, were the county court right in refusing to grant the defendant’s'prayer, as stated in his bill of exceptions, “ that the plaintiffs were not erititled to recover?” So uniform and consistent have been the adjudications of this court since the passage of the act of 1852, chap. 117, that for a [345]*345county court’s refusing to grant such a prayer, its judgment cannot be reversed on appeal to this court, that we do not deem it necessary to give the names of the cases in which such adjudications have been made.

The numerous other' questions, which have been argued at great length by the appellant’s counsel, not being presented by the record for our consideration, it would be out of place in this court to express any opinion upon them.

The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Gill 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-state-ex-rel-bateman-md-1848.