Opinion ID: 2191641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motions raising preliminary objection

Text: Kerpelman says, Each and every Motion Raising Preliminary Objection made by [him] below should have been granted. He adds no more. This is not an acceptable method of procedure. See, e.g., Dean v. Redmiles, 280 Md. 137, 169-70, 374 A.2d 329 (1977), and State Roads Comm. v. Halle, 228 Md. 24, 178 A.2d 319 (1962). In the latter case Judge Prescott said for the Court: Under its Statement of Facts in its brief, appellant alleges that, both real estate witnesses [of the appellees] Jones and McCurdy, over objection, subtracted from their after value the sewer deficits computed by the witness Matz, without reference to the record extract wherein the witnesses testified as alleged, or the objections were made. Still under the same heading, it then alleges, appellant moved that    that part of the real estate witnesses' testimony concerning sewer deficits be stricken, which motion was denied (E. 259-260). The record sustains the fact that this motion was made and denied. But neither under this heading nor the heading of Argument in its brief does it present any argument in support of its contention on this point, nor do the appellees deal specifically with the question. Under these circumstances, we conclude the point has been waived. Maryland Rule 831 c 4; cf. Fid. & Dep. Co. v. Mattingly Lumber Co., 176 Md. 217, 220, 4 A.2d 447; Comptroller v. Aerial Products, 210 Md. 627, 644, 124 A.2d 805. Surely it is not incumbent upon this Court, merely because a point is mentioned as being objectionable at some point in a party's brief, to scan the entire record and ascertain if there be any ground, or grounds, to sustain the objectionable feature suggested. [ Id. 31-32.] We have examined the motions raising preliminary objection, however, and find no error in their denial.