640 CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.—3 B.LAND.

ity of travelling, the law of Scotland requires a residence of forty
days, to subject even a foreigner to be sued in the Courts of that
country. Kames' Prin. Eq. b. 3, c. 8, s. 1; Utterton v. Tewsch, 3
Eccle. Rep. 351; Gordon v. Pye, 3 Eccle. Rep. 450, 463.

In the year 1714, the Legislature of Maryland, reciting, that the
people had greatly suffered by the then war; and that their mise-
rable and deplorable circumstances were very much heightened
and aggravated b> their being sued and brought to Annapolis
from the remotest parts of the Province, to their manifest oppres-
sion and impoverishment, among other things, enacted, that where
the debt or damages did not exceed twenty pounds sterling, the
debtor should only be sued in the County Court of the county in
which he resided, and not elsewhere; 1714, ch. 4; which Act was,
from time to time, continued and revived until the year 1794, when
it was suffered to expire. 1773, ch. 17. This Act, however, pro-
vided only a partial remedy for the evil it proposed to remove; and
therefore, afterwards, on its being represented to the General
Assembly as a very great grievance to the people, that there was
not a sufficient provision made against arresting them when they
happen to be found about their necessary affairs out of the county
where they reside, it was enacted, that no inhabitant should be
arrested by a capias ad respondendum or a capias ad satisfaciendum,
out of the county in which he resided, until after a return of non
est on such writ. 1728. ch. 24; 1796, ch. 43, s. 14; 1801, ch. 74. s.
11. (o)

This law applied to all such writs, from whatever Court they
might issue; and therefore, although the jurisdiction of the Gene-
ral Court, then in existence, extended over the whole State, this
law made it necessary, that its process, for the arresting of a de-
fendant, should be first directed to the county in which he resided.
and consequently, as in England, a testatum capias, or a process in
nature of such a writ, was the only one which, in many cases,
could be sued out. And upon the principles of the English law,
it is obvious, that the General Court must have used an execution,
if not .precisely the same, yet in all respects equivalent to a testa -
tum * fieri facias; because two or more writs of fieri facias
665 could not be issued from that Court, any more than from
the King's Bench, at the same time directed to two or more different
counties; but could only go consecutively to the same or to differ-
ent counties, until an entire satisfaction was produced; 1 Sellon's
Pra, 536; Bullock v. Morris, 2 Taunt. 67; Waters v. Caton, 1 H. &

(o) Where the suit abates by the death of a defendant, his executor or ad-
ministrator may, to revive the suit, be summoned from any other county of
the State.—1812, ch. 145, s. 4. And as it would seem a party may be arrested
by virtue of an attachment any where in the State and brought before the
High Court of Chancery.—Crapster v. Griffith, 2 Bland, 15.