
    Davis vs. Wilson, et al.
    
    A paper certified in a record trims* mitred on apoca!, purposing io be a bill ot eXcepiioii'i taken at the trial, was held not to be a Mil of exceptions in the ea*e, it, not appearing that the ce«iU of ihejmlgvs of the court' below had been affixed to it*
    The court of ap» peals having reversed a judgment of the court below, on the form of proceeding"», there being a material va» lianee beíw. en the writ and the declaration refused to remit the r; cord with aprocadendot,
    
    Appeal from the County Court of Baltimore. The record in this case contained a bill of exceptions, tendered to the associate justices of the county court by the defendant, (die appellant,) and which was signed, but not sealed,, by the justices.
    
      TV. Dorsey and Brice,, for the Appellant,
    contended, that there was a material variance between the writ and the declaration; the former being in the names of William Wilson, and others,'and the latter in that of William Wilson alone.
    They were proceeding to argue the points raised on the bill of exceptions, when it was discovered that it had not been sealed, as before stated.
   Tnw Court

were about to reverse the judgment on the form of proceedings, and to award a, procedendo, when

W. Dorsey contended, that a procedendo ought not to be awarded in a case where the court do not reverse on a bill of exceptions.

The Court

considered that there was no bill of exceptions in the case, the seals of the justices not being affixed (hereto; but there was error in the form of proceeding, and reversed the judgment without awarding & procedendo*

JUDGMENT REVERSED»  