ART. 57] ACTIONS OTHER THAN ON SPECIALTIES. 1393

This section has no application to an action of assumpsit for taxes—see
article 81, section 88. Guuther v. Baltimore, 55 Md. 462.

The application of this section to a riot, (even before the act of 1867, ch.
282), questioned—see article 82, section 2. Hagerstown v. Sebner, 37 Md.
190.

As to limitations in suits for negligence causing death, see article 07,
section 2 and notes.

As to limitations applicable to ground-rents in arrear, see article 53,
sections 25 and 26.

As to the conclusive presumption of the renewal of a lease for 99 years
renewable forever, upon possession by the lessee for 12 months after such
lease expires, see art. 21, sec. 95.

A will can not be caveated after three years from its probate—art. 93,
sec. 342.

As to the barring of a claim presented to an administrator and rejected,
see art. 93, sec. 107.

As to the time within which creditors must attack conveyances from
husband to wife, see art. 45. sec. 1.

Running accounts.

The operation of the statute is prevented by the running of mutual
accounts, if some of the Items are within the statutory period. When
accounts are not mutual. Webster v. Byrnes, 32 Md. 89.

The fact that one item in an account is within three years, does not
withdraw the whole account from the operation of the statute. Sprogle v.
Alien, 38 Md. 335.

Effect of an amendment of the declaration.

The general rule is that where limitations is not a bar before suit
brought, an amendment of the declaration when the cause of action remains
the same, will not warrant the filing of the plea of limitations, although the
period has then expired, and this is true though the original declaration Is
bad on demurrer; contra, when the amendment changes the cause of action.
Zler v. Chesapeake Ry. Co., 98 Md. 37; Western Union Co. v. Nelson. 82 Md.
293; Hamilton v. Thirston, 94 Md. 256; Wolf v. Bauereis, 72 Md. 488;
Schulze v. Fox. 53 Md. 41; State v. Green, 4 G. & J. 384.

The statute does not apply to a suit on a note brought within a year after
its maturity, the declaration being amended more than three years after its
maturity. Hamburger v. Paul, 51 Md. 229. See also. Wolf v. Bauereis, 72
Md. 488.

When a suit is a new one. and when it is a continuation of an old one
White v. Joyce, 158 U. S. 128.

Application of the statute.

The plaintiff's ignorance of his rights, does not affect the application of
the statute. The mere knowledge of an adverse claim by the defendant
does not operate as a bar: there must be such an act of Invasion of the
rights of the plaintiff as gives him a cause of action. Abell v Harris, 11
G. & J. 371.

There is no principle of limitation except that recognized in the statutes
or adopted in analogy thereto, which limits the duration of a lien such as
that given city authorities against abutting property for the grading and
paving of streets. Limitations is not applicable to such Hen. Eschbach v.
Pitts. 6 Md. 76.

This section has no application to a legacy made a charge on lands.
Greenwood v. Greenwood, 5 Md. 330: Crawford v. Severson, 5 Gill, 448
See also. Ward v. Reeder, 2 H. & McH. 154; Ogle v. Taylor, 49 Md. 176.

Municipal corporations, including the District of Columbia, held to come
within the application of this section. The fact that the duty which the
defendant failed to perform, and which failure gave rise to the suit, Is a
statutory one. does not defeat the operation of this section. Metropolitan
Road v. District of Columbia. 132 U. S. 1; District of Columbia v Wood-
bury, 136 U. S. 457.