152 APPEALS AND EEEOES. [ART. 5

records or other instruments shall be stated, and they shall not be set
out in full in any case, except where some question arises upon the con-
struction or validity thereof; and transcripts of records in equity causes
shall be prepared in accordance with this rule. Any party to the appeal,
however, shall have the right to direct any or all of such documentary
proof to be inserted at length, the clerk stating at whose instance the
same is so inserted, that costs may be awarded as the matter so incor-
porated may be deemed proper or not, by the court of appeals, to have
been set out iu full.

1904, art. 5, sec. 36. 1888, art. 5. sec. 34. 1860, art. 5, sec. 26. 1832, ch. 302.

sec. 5. 1861, ch. 33.

36. On an appeal from a court of equity, no objection to the com-
petency of a witness, or the admissibility of evidence, or to the suffi-
ciency of the averments of the bill or petition, or to any account stated
and reported in said cause, shall be made in the court of appeals, unless
it shall appear by the record that such objection was made by excep-
tions, filed in the court from which such appeal shall have been taken.

Requisites of exceptions.

All this section requires is that the exceptions be sufficiently definite to
show the particular witnesses or evidence designed to be excepted to.
Young v. Mackall, 4 Md. 370; Berrett v. Oliver, 1 G. & J. 202.

The exceptions must be filed in due form plainly indicating the witness
and evidence objected to, or the specific objections to an auditor's report;
the mere noting of an exception by the examiner is not sufficient. Gerting
v. Wells, 103 Md. 638; Young v. Ohmohundro, 69 Md. 428; Grand United
Order, etc., v. Merklin, 65 Md. 583. And see Cross v. Cohen, 3 Gill, 258.

A memorandum filed in the cause, but not signed, objecting to the compe-
tency of testimony, is not a sufficient exception. Sindall v. Campbell, 7 Gill,
76. And see Cross v. Cohen, 3 Gill, 270.

An exception reading, "Subject to all exception on account of the incom-
petency of the witness," is sufficient, where the agreement for the taking
of the testimony 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. Cal-
vert v. Carter, 18 Md. 111.

This section inapplicable.

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

The point that the complainants have failed to establish a material alle-
gation 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 excep-
tions 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.