|
1392 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. [ART. 57
Where one partner is asking for an account in equity against his co-part-
ners, if the moneys which the co-parthers are charged with having received
may have been received within three years, the statute is not a bar. Wood v
Gault, 2 Md. Ch. 441.
This section is applicable to a bill for an account in equity as well as to
an action at law. Limitations in equity discussed. Wilhelm v. Caylor, 32
Md. 155. See also, Emerson v. Gaither, 103 Md. 579; Harper v. Clayton, 84
Md. 351; Weaver v. Leiman. 52 Md. 713: McKailg v. Hebb. 42 Md. 235:
Bowie v. Stonestreet, 6 Md. 431; Hertle v. Schwartze, 3 Md. 383 (approving
Dugan v. Gittlngs, 3 Gill, 161, and stating that Lamar v. Jones, 3 H. & McH.
328, is overruled as to limitations in equity); Hertle v. McDonald, 2 Md. Ch.
133; Green v. Johnson. 3 G. & J. 394; Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bl. 273;
Baker v. Cunimings. 169 U. S. 206; Willard, v. Wood, 164 U. S. 502.
The filing of a bill to carry out the directions of a will for the sale of
real estate with prayer for general relief, is not a creditors' bill and does
not prevent the running of the statute as against a debt recoverable under
a creditors' bill. Sabel v. Slingluff, 52 Md. 135.
The possibility of limitations being pleaded at law. is no ground of relief
in equity. Dickey v. Permanent Land, etc., Co. 63 Md. 176.
Where an order in a court of equity allowing the filing of an answer,
prohibits the defense of limitatious. such defense can not prevail. Jackson
v. West, 22 Md. 83.
When it is not neccessary to verify a plea of limitations in equity by oath.
Carroll v. Waring, 3 G. & J. 503.
The running of the statute is suspended bv an injunction. Little v. Price,
1 Md. Ch. 187.
Where an estate is being distributed in equity and certain of the claims
which would otherwise be barred are alleged to have been revived, there
must be no collusion. Cape Sable Co.'s Case, 3 Bl. 673.
Limitations in particular cases.
In an action of replevin, where it was shown that the property was orig-
inally held by the defendant with the consent of the plaintiff, the plea of
limitations will not prevail although three years have elapsed, unless knowl-
edge of an adverse claim has been brought home to the plaintiff or his intes-
tate. Cole v. Hebb, 7 G. & J. 43; Callis v. Tolson, 6 G. & J. 92. See also,
Ward v. Reeder, 2 H. & McH. 154.
All actions for trespass for injury to rights of property in land, such as
for mesne profits, are within the operation of this section. The statute
bars all rents and profits accruing more than three years before suit
brought. Tongue v. Nutwell, 31 Md. 313. And see Mltchell v. Mitchell, 10
Aid. 241.
Where limitations is pleaded to a bill for an account of rents and profits,
and the defendant claims allowance for improvements, such allowance must
be deducted from the amount of the rents and profits for the whole period
the defendant is in possession. Ridgely v. Bond. 18 Md. 451. See also,
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 10 Md. 241.
The statute as a positive bar. held to have no application in a suit
in equity to redeem a life insurance policy and to recover the amount
thereof. Dungan v. Mutual Benefit Ins. Co., 46 Md 498.
In an action of slander, the plaintiff, in order to establish malice, may
prove declarations made by the defendant more than a year prior to the
suit, since limitations applies to the cause of action and not to evidence.
Boteler v. Bell. 1 Md. 178.
A suit against a railway company for an injury caused by a collision, is
not an action for assault to be brought within one year. City Pass. Ry.
Co. v. Tanner, 90 Md. 317.
In Grant v. Beall, 4 H. & McH. 419, it was held that the statute was not
a bar to a suit against an agent for money received more than three years
prior to the suit, but that case was overruled on this point in Green v. John-
son, 3 G. & J. 397.
Limitations is no defense to an action against a sheriff for a false return.
Newcomer v. Keedy, 2 Md. 25.
The statute is no bar to an action on the case against a sheriff for an
escape. French v. O'Neale. 2 H. & McH. 401.
|
