In Rayner v. State, 52 Md. 368, it was said: "It is only where the Circuit Court has proceeded without right or jurisdiction to hear and decide the case that an appeal or writ of error may be taken to this Court to reverse the judgment thus unwarrantably rendered," but "having invoked that jurisdiction and submitted himself to it, and the case having been regularly tried, he has no redress by an appeal or writ of error to this Court." Queen v. State, 116 Md. 678, 680, 82 A. 656. In this case we have held that the justice of the peace and the Circuit Court had proceeded under a statute that had ceased to exist, and that neither the justice nor the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, and therefore no authority to proceed with the trial of the defendant.
So, in a criminal case, if the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence inflicted, an appeal therefrom will lie. Hendrick v. State, 115 Md. 552, 558; Queen v. State, 116 Md. 678, 680; Rayner v. State, 52 Md. 368, 376. The express assent of prisoner's counsel to the form submitted cannot confer jurisdiction; and, consequently, if the court had no power to pronounce sentence on the verdict rendered, the court, sua sponte, must reverse the judgment.
The filing of an appeal bond as required by section 92 of Article 5 of the Code, is for the purpose of staying execution on the judgment appealed from, as stated by the statute and cannot relate to the right of appeal or the jurisdiction of the Court, to hear the appeal. Blondheim v. Moore, 11 Md. 365; Glenn v. Davis, 35 Md. 208; Stinson v. Ellicott City Company, 109 Md. 115; Lewis v. Higgins, 52 Md. 614. It is clear upon the face of the proceedings that the Justice of the Peace had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, and that the Baltimore City Court, had authority on appeal to review the judgment of the justice, so there is no right of review by this Court, and the appeal must be dismissed. Clark v. Vannort, 78 Md. 220; State v. Rayner, 52 Md. 373; Queen v. State, 116 Md. 678; Matthews v. Whiteford, 119 Md. 124; Stephens et al. v. Mayor and Council of Crisfield, ante, page 190. Appeal dismissed, with costs.
It is equally clear that in reviewing the judgment of the justice, the Circuit Court had power to decide upon the sufficiency of the notice to quit, and also of the effect of the clause in the lease waiving any notice to quit. It is firmly settled by numerous decisions that the only question in such cases, which this Court can consider, is whether the Circuit Court had the right to decide what it did decide, and that we cannot consider whether it decided rightly or not. Rayner v. State, 52 Md. 368; Clark v. Vannort, 78 Md. 221; Mining Company v. Midland Company, 99 Md. 506; Smith Premier Co. v. Westcott, 112 Md. 146; Queen v. State, 116 Md. 678. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.