1636 PLEADINGS, PRACTICE AND PROCESS AT LAW. [ART. 75

when any cause or causes of action upon account of which the plaintiff
shall have paid money into court by way of compensation and amends
shall have been added by way of amendments, the defendants shall be
entitled to tax the costs which shall have accrued after said amendment
only, or the plaintiff may reply that the sum paid into court is not
enough to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the matter to
which the plea is pleaded, and in the event of an issue thereon being
found for the defendant, the defendant shall be entitled to his costs, the
same to be apportioned by the court where there are two or more causes
of action joined as aforesaid, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to so
much of the sum paid into court as shall be found for him.
See note to sec. 20.

1904, art. 75, sec. 22. 1888. art. 75, sec. 22. 1860, art. 75, sec. 21.
1852, ch. 177, sec. 10.

22. It shall not be necessary to state the name by which land may
have been patented in declarations in actions of ejectment, dower, tres-
pass or case, but the same may be described by abuttals, course and
distance by any name it may have acquired by reputation or by any
other description certain enough to idenitfy the same.

This section referred to in deciding that in an action of trespass, evidence
of the name of land acquired by reputation is admissible. Tyson v. Shueey,
5 Md. 548; Peters v. Tilghman, 111 Md. 239. And as to ejectment, see Cad-
walader v. Price, 111 Md. 315.

The plaintiff can not abandon his locations in an action of trespass, and
prove by parol his possession and the reputed name of the land. The act
of 1852, ch. 177, has not altered the law on this subject. Clary v. Kimmell.
18 Md. 246; Houck v. Loveall, 8 Md. 63. And as to ejectment, see Budd v.
Brooke, 3 Gill, 198.

See sec. 79.

Ibid. sec. 23. 1896, ch. 367, sec. 22 A. 1902, ch. 449.

23. Whenever any insurance company or surety or bonding com-
pany of any kind whatsoever shall have a duly accredited agent in any
county or city of this Sate resident therein and shall become obligated
by its policy or other contract, express or implied, to any resident of
any such county or city the said company may sue or be sued on such
policies as other contracts in the same manner as if resident in such
city or county, by causing process to be served on such resident agent,
which shall be as effective in law and equity as if such service had been
made on the president, director or directors of such company, and the
judgment rendered in such case shall have the same force and effect as
other judgments would or could have.

Process served upon the local agent of an insurance company upheld
under this section; that such agent does not notify the company is imma-
terial. Girard Ins. Co. v. Bankard, 107 Md. 540.

Although process was served on the secretary of the company instead
of as required by the act of 1896. ch. 367, the court was not thereby
deprived of jurisdiction, since such an infirmity must be taken advantage
of by motion to quash the summons. The act of 1896, ch. 367, construed.
Henderson v. Home Ins. Co.. 90 Md. 51.

As to process against corporations, see art. 23, sections 87 and 92. As
to process against foreign insurance companies, see art. 23, sec. 182.