ART. 57] ACTIONS OTHER THAN ON SPECIALTIES. 1395

No trust being established, the statute applies in equity. Piper v. Tuck.
26 Md. 221. See also, Fishwick v. Sewell, 4 H. & J. 430; Oehler v. Walker.
2 H. & G. 331; Belt v. Hepburn, 4 H. & McH. 525.

Dower.

Limitations is no bar in equity to a widow's claim for dower or the rents
and profits thereof. Wells v. Beall, 2 G. & J. 473. See also, Mitchell v.
Farrish, 69 Md. 241.

Although limitations does not apply to the wife's suit for dower, it does
not follow that lapse of time may not become a bar to a bill for an account.
Kiddall v. Trimble, 1 Md. Ch. 150.

The position that an annuity being in lieu of dower, is like dower, exempt
from limitations, may be sound. Chew v. Farmers' Bank, 2 Md. Ch. 248.

Application of last clause of this section.

The last clause of this section applies to dealings between a merchant
creditor residing out of Maryland and a debtor residing in Maryland, and
in order to take the case out of the exception, it is not sufficient to aver
that the creditor returned to, and was within the state of Maryland after
the cause of action accrued and more than three years before suit brought.
(Cf. notes to section 5). Bond v. Jay, 7 Cranch. 350 (based on the act of
1715, ch. 23).

The exception in the last clause of this section, has no application to
transactions between banks; nor to a bill by a partner for an accounting.
Farmers' Bank v. Planters' Bank, 10 G. & J. 441; Wilhelm v. Caylor, 32
Md. 160.

This section is to be construed in connection with section 5, so that the
intent of the legislature to the affect that limitations should not apply to a
creditor whose debtor is out of the state, may prevail. Mason v. Union
Mills Co., 81 Md. 457; Hysinger v. Baltzell, 3 G. & I 161.

Generally.

The statute of limitations affects the remedy, but not the debt or lien.
Farmers' Bank v. Iglehart, 6 Gill, 58; Donaldson v. Raborg, 26 Md. 326;
B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Clark, 19 Md. 520; Oliver v. Gray, 1 H. & G. 215;
Barney v. Smith. 4 H. & J. 495; Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Winn, 4 Md. Ch. 254.

While mortgage notes are barred after three years, the covenant In a
mortgage Is only barred after twelve years. Earnshaw v. Stewart, 64 Md.
516.

The reason and policy of the statute should be considered and applied by
analogy in determining whether mandamus will lie. George's Creek, etc..
Co. v. Allegany County, 59 Md. 262.

Limitations can not be pleaded against the claim of a grantee under a
deed of trust with reference to the proceeds of property so conveyed:
contra, as to other property. Gibbs v. Cunningham, 4 Md. Ch. 325.

This section applied in a suit in assumpsit by heirs to recover damages for
the failure of their warranty. Flowers v. Foreman, 23 How. 132.

As to the form and time of filing an issue from the orphans' court raising
the question of limitations, see Cook v. Carr, 20 Md. 415.

The state may shorten the period of limitations. State v. Jones. 21
Md. 438.

An assumpsit after the expiration of three years, is not sufficient to take
the case out of the statute, the action being founded on a tort. Galligher v.
Hollingsworth, 3 H. & McH. 122.

The statute may be applied in favor of a plaintiff as well as of a defend-
ant. Watklns v. Dorsett, 1 Bl. 532.

It is the duty of the court to give minor defendants the benefit of limita-
tions. White v. Joyce, 158 U. S. 128.

No court of law or equity will assume as a matter of law, that limitations
will be pleaded where it may be pleaded. Burtles v. State, 4 Md. 279.

The statutory period having expired, limitations was held to be a bar in
the following cases: Albert v. Albert, 74 Md. 535 (debt, father to son);
Dempsey v. McNabb, 73 Md. 438 (claim for services); Long v. Long, 62 Md.
74 (bill for account of rents and profits); Ecker v. First Nat. Bank, 59 Md.
302 (promissory notes); Hertle v. Scbwartze, 3 Md. 382 (bill to recover