ABSENCE FROM THE STATE. 1399

As to how the statute should be pleaded, see notes to sec. 1.
As to persons under disability, see notes to sec. 2.
See sections 1 and 6 and notes.

1904, art. 57. sec. 4. 1888, art. 57, sec. 4. 1860, art. 57, sec. 4.
1715, ch. 23, sees. 4, 5.

4. No person absenting himself from this State or that shall remove
from county to county after any debt contracted whereby the creditor
may be at an uncertainty of finding out such person or his effects shall
have any benefit of any limitation herein contained, but nothing con-
tained in this section shall debar any person from removing himself
or family from one county to another for his convenience, or shall
deprive any person leaving this State for the time herein limited of
the benefit thereof, he leaving effects sufficient and known for the pay-
ment of his just debts in the hands of some person who will assume the
payment thereof to his creditors.

The intent of the legislature is that limitations should not attach against
a creditor where the debtor is absent from the state at the time the cause
of action accrues. If, however, after such accrual, the debtor is in the
state and thus affords the creditor an opportunity to prosecute his writ, the
action should he instituted within the statutory period. What amounts to
the requisite "presence within the state"? Hysinger v. Baltzell, 3 G. &
J. 161.

This section has no application to a case where there is no fraud or
concealment of residence. The object of this section discussed. Fink v. Zepp,
70 Md. 185; Maurice v. Worden, 52 Md. 234.

The court seems to have placed very little reliance upon this section,
declaring it to be so ambiguous as to be practcally useless. Mason v. Union
Mills Co., 81 Md. 457; Maurice v. Worden, 52 Md. 294.

Ibid. sec. 5. 1888. art. 57, sec. 5. 1860, art. 57, sec. 5. 1765, ch. 12.

5. If any person liable to any action shall be absent out of the State
at the time when the cause of action may arise or accrue against him
he shall have no benefit of the limitation herein contained if the person
who has the cause of action shall commmence the same after the pres-
ence in this State of the person liable thereto within the terms herein
limited.

Where both plaintiff and defendant are non-residents and the cause of
action is made and to be performed in another state, the plaintiff is entitled
to the benefit of this section. Where a non-resident defendant voluntarily
appears in an attachment, he can not rely upon limitations, although the
plaintiff is also a non-resident, unless the defendant has been within this
state for the statutory period. Mason v. Union Mills Co. 81 Md. 448.

This section is to be construed in connection with section 1, BO that the
intent of the legislature to the effect 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. & J. 161.

Though a defendant may be actually within the limits of the state, if he
is beyond the reach of process, he is out of the state" within the meaning
of this section. If he can be reached by process, it makes no difference
whether he is a resident or not. Mason v. Union Mills Co., 81 Md. 4H7. See
also, Maurice v. Worden, 52 Md. 291; Hysinger v. Baltzell, 3 G. & J. 162.

When the statute once begins to run. no subsequent disability will arrest
it unless so provided by statute. The effect of the statute can not be avoided
by a calculation to the effect that the defendant has not been in the state
precisely three years. Maurice v. Worden, 52 Md. 294.

The fact that the defendant is a non-resident does not deprive him of the
benefit of the statute if he has been in Maryland for more than three years
89