ART. 75] DECLARATIONS——PLEAS——REPLICATIONS. 1629

Generally.

This section is only declaratory of the common law, and is based on the
necessity of informing the adverse party of what is to be proved in order to
give him an opportunity to answer or traverse it Mills v. Baltimore, etc.,
Ry. Co., 111 Md. 262; Pearce v. Watkins, 08 Md. 538; Gent v. Cole, 38 Md. 113.

Sections 2 to 7 were intended to prevent technical proceedings, and to
regard only matters of substance. Spencer v. Trafford, 42 Md. 15; Ordway v.
Central Bank, 47 Md. 261 (concurring opinion); Cumberland, etc., E. R. Co.
v. Slack, 45 Md. 178; Blackburn v. Beall, 21 Md. 229; Felty v. Young, 18
Md. 168.

The allegation of a warranty of a particular chattel held to be sustained
under this and the following section, by proof of the warranty of several
chattels. McCeney v. Duvall, 21 Md. 184.

This section referred to in construing section 24, sub-sections 34 and 35—
see notes thereto. Bottomly v. Bottomly, 80 Md. 162.

As to forms of pleading, see sec. 24.

As to pleading in equity, see art. 16, sec. 139, ct seq.

1904, art. 75, sec. 3. 1888, art. 75, sec. 3. 1860, art. 75, sec. 3. 1856, ch. 112,
sees. 35, 52, 69. 1870, ch. 420. 1872, ch. 346.

3. Any declaration which contains a plain statement of the facts
necessary to constitute a ground of action shall be sufficient, and any
plea necessary to form a legal defense shall be sufficient, without refer-
ence to mere form; this to apply to replications, rejoinders and all sub-
sequent pleadings.

The object of all pleading is that parties litigant may be mutually apprised
of the matters in controversy. Common counts held insufficient, and special
counts also insufficient either as setting up a claim on a policy of insurance or
an action of deceit. Pearce v. Watkins, 68 Md 538.

Under this section, no more of a contract need be set out than pertains to
the obligation the breach of which is complained of, but if the alternative
qualifies the obligation, then the whole should be set out according to the
legal effect. A variance not made out. Caledonian Ins. Co. v. Traub, 80 Md.
220. And see Crichton v. Smith, 34 Md. 47.

A declaration alleging a trespass in the erection of a telegraph pole in front
of premises of which the plaintiff was in possession, and the consequent
obstruction of the use of said premises, though not alleging the mode and
manner of the obstruction, held sufficient under this section. Chesapeake,
etc., Telephone Co. v. MacKenzie, 74 Md. 42.

A declaration in a suit on an executor's bond which was substantially set
out in the narr., held sufficient. Ruby v. State, 55 Md. 488.

A declaration In an action on an appeal bond held sufficient under this sec-
tion. Everett v. State, 28 Md. 205.

An averment in an action of deceit of loss or damage growing out of false
representations, held sufficient under this section and section 7. McAleer v.
Horsey, 35 Md. 458.

A declaration on a guaranty held sufficient under this section and section 7.
Mitchell v. McCleary, 42 Md. 376.

A declaration alleging that the plaintiff as the possessor of a distillery was
entitled to the flow of a stream of water for working the same and that the
defendant befouled said stream and rendered it unfit for plaintiffs use, held
sufficient. Price v. Lawson, 74 Md. 507.

This section is applicable to a plea of limitations. Wallace v. Schaub, 81
Md. 597.

See notes to sections 2 and 4. As to forms of pleading, see sec. 24.

Ibid, sec. 4. 1888, art. 75, sec. 4. 1860, art. 75, sec. 4. 1856, ch.. 112, sec. 91.
4. It shall not be necessary to state any formal commencement or
conclusion to any declaration or other plea.