1390 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. [ART. 57

In case a debt covered by this section is revived, suit is brought on the
original cause of action and not on the new promise. Oliver v. Gray, 1 H.
& G. 215; Guy v. Tams, 6 Gill, 84. See also, Barney v. Smith, 4 H. & J. 495.

Where a specialty becomes barred and is revived by a new promise, an
action upon the new promise is itself barred after three years. Young v.
Mackall, 4 Md. 372; Young v. Mackall, 3 Md. Ch. 398.

An acknowledgment or new promise, though made on Sunday, revives
the debt. Thomas v. Hunter, 29 Md. 411.

As to entries in books of account by the defendant's agent, removing the
bar of tile statute, see Morrlson v. Whiteside, 17 Md. 458.

A stockholder can not revive a debt due by the corporation. Davis v.
Gemmell, 73 Md. 537.

For circumstances under which a promise or acknowledgment by one
executor takes the case out of the statute as to all the executors, see Pole v.
Simmons, 49 Md. 21; McCann v. Sloan, 25 Md. 588.

An admission of a debt by an executor, even a Judgment against him,
can not take a debt out of a statute to the prejudice of the rights of the
heir. Held that no equitable lien was established, and hence the statute
applied. Collinson v. Owens, 6 G. & J. 10.

Where a debt Is contracted with one partner, it may be revived by an
acknowledgment subsequently made to another partner, the suit being on
the original promise. Barney v. Smith, 4 H. & J. 495, etc.

So long as the partnership exists, an acknowledgment or promise by one
partner, removes the bar of the statute as to the other partners. Abrahams v.
Myers, 40 Md. 507.

The promise of one partner, after a dissolution, does not revive a debt
once barred, as against his co-partners. The dictum to the contrary in
Ward v. Howell, 5 H. & J. 60, was overruled in Ellicott v. Nichols, 7 Gill,
85. Whether a promise was made before the statute attached, is a question
of law. Newman v. McComas, 43 Md. 82; Leonard v. Hughlett, 41 Md. 387.
See also, Ellicott v. Nichols, 7 Gill, 100; Seldner v. Mount Jackson Bank, 66
Md. 494; Llngan v. Henderson, 1 Bl. 278.

A contract made by several contractors, can not be taken out of the
statute by an acknowledgment by one of them. Lingan v. Henderson, 1
Bl. 278.

As to payments by a co-maker of a joint and several note, taking the
case out of the statute, see Burgoon v. Bixler, 55 Md. 392. Cf. Wllmer v.
Gaither, 68 Md. 343.

Payments by a husband on account of the Joint note of himself and wife,
will not revive the debt as to the wife. Wilmer v. Galther, 68 Md. 343
(quaere, whether this decision holds good since the act of 1898, ch. 457).

The plea of limitations.

How the statute should be pleaded. Scaggs v. Kellly, 88 Md. 65; Byrd v.
State, 44 Md. 501; Bevans v. McGlocklln, 9 Md. 479; State v. Green, 4 G. &
J. 384; Dent v. Scott, 3 H. & J. 32; Harper v. Hampton, 1 H. & J. 461; Mur-
dock v. Winter, 1 H. & G. 473; Wooton v. Sprigg, 4 H. & McH. 352; Perkins
v. Turner, 1 H. & McH. 400; Moreton v. Harrison, 1 Bl. 491.

The statute need not be pleaded to each distinct count in a declaration.
Bullen v. Rldgely, 1 H. & J. 104. Cf. note (a) to this case.

Limitations is not a plea to the merits and can not be amended or filed
after the rule day. Where a declaration Is amended, limitations must be
pleaded at once, or it comes too late. Griffin v. Moore, 43 Md. 252; Wall v.
Wall. 2 H. & G. 81; Schulze v. Fox, 53 Md. 42. Of. Spear v. Griffin, 23
Md. 430.

The plea of limitations can not be amended, though the amended plea is
filed before the rule day has expired. State v. Green, 4 G. & J. 384.

When leave to file additional pleas is granted, limitation may be pleaded
provided it be done within the time originally allowed for pleading. Mitchell
v. Sellman, 5 Md. 384.

A plea of limitations is not favored in the law; a party may waive it at
his option. Farmers' Bank v. Sprigg, 11 Md. 398.

An irregularity in the time of filing a plea of limitations, is waived by
the filing of a replication to such plea. Stockett v. Sasscer. 8 Md. 377.