salutary rule in Maryland

1930In Gott v. Carr, 6 G. & J. 309 , our predecessors, speaking through Chief Judge Buchanan, said: “It is a salutary principle of law, that every person is bound to take care of and protect his own rights and interests', and to vindicate them in due season, and in the proper place.

1928In Gott v. Carr, 6 G. & J. 309 , Chief Judge Buchanan said: “It is a salutary principle of law that every person is bound to take care of and protect his own rights and interests, and to vindicate them in due season, and in the proper place.

1994This principle was affirmed in Hanley v. Stulman, 212 Md. 273 , 129 A.2d 132 (1957), where the Court added, at 277, 129 A.2d 132 : *727 “The arm of an Equity Court is not so short, nor its authority so impotent, that it must permit a defendant to evade, with impunity, the broad and salutary principle of law that one cannot profit by his own wrongdoing.

1994This principle was affirmed in Hanley v. Stulman, 212 Md. 273 , 129 A.2d 132 (1957), where the Court added, at 277, 129 A.2d 132 : *727 “The arm of an Equity Court is not so short, nor its authority so impotent, that it must permit a defendant to evade, with impunity, the broad and salutary principle of law that one cannot profit by his own wrongdoing.

1991That decision was followed by Stewart v. United States, 214 F. 2d 879 , where the Court of Appeals held that the District Court’s distinction between “mental disease” and “mental disorder” was at least confusing, and remanded the case for a new trial. *593 In this country it is universally recognized as a salutary doctrine that a decision made on a question presented in a case before an appellate court should not thereafter be lightly modified or abrogated.

1980In so holding, I think the Court has unwisely departed from the salutary principle of Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 413 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974) that "counsel should not be permitted by the court, over proper objection, to state and comment upon facts not in evidence or to state *557 what he could have proven." I therefore dissent from the reversal of the conviction in this case.

1980In so holding, I think the Court has unwisely departed from the salutary principle of Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 413 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974) that "counsel should not be permitted by the court, over proper objection, to state and comment upon facts not in evidence or to state *557 what he could have proven." I therefore dissent from the reversal of the conviction in this case.

1906This salutary rule of interpretation is founded upon an obvious rule of public policy, which regards such exemptions as in derogation of the sovereign authority and of common right and therefore not to be extended beyond the exact and express requirements of the grants construed strictissirni juris.” The appellant carried the Ocean City case by writ of error to the United States Supreme Court which dismissed the writ for want of jurisdiction, as will appear from the memoranda of unreported cases in 179 U. S. When the Wicomico County case reported in 93 Md. 113 came before us we applied the sam

1901Milner v. Milner, supra; Hill v. Hill, supra; Robertson v. Robertson, supra; Embree v. Embree, 53 Ill. 394 ; Lutz v. Lutz, 52 N. J.

1901Milner v. Milner, supra; Hill v. Hill, supra; Robertson v. Robertson, supra; Embree v. Embree, 53 Ill. 394 ; Lutz v. Lutz, 52 N. J.

1901Milner v. Milner, supra; Hill v. Hill, supra; Robertson v. Robertson, supra; Embree v. Embree, 53 Ill. 394 ; Lutz v. Lutz, 52 N. J.

1888Briscoe, 44 Md., 308 , and in subsequent cases, this Courtis not at liberty to review the rulings of the Court below set forth in the bill of exception found in the record before us.