1668 PLEADINGS, PRACTICE AND PROCESS AT LAW. [ART. 75

judgment, in case the same shall be erroneous; and the said lessor or
landlord shall from thenceforth hold the said demised premises dis-
charged from such lease; and if, on such ejectment, a verdict shall pass
for the defendant, or the plaintiff shall be non-suited therein, then, and
in every such case, the defendant shall have and recover his costs; pro-
vided that nothing herein contained shall extend to bar the right of any
mortgagee of such lease, or any part thereof, who shall not be in
possession, so as such mortgagee shall and do, within six calendar
months after such judgment obtained and execution executed, pay all
costs and damages sustained by such lessor or person entitled to the
remainder or reversion as aforesaid, and perform all the covenants and
agreements which, on the part and behalf of the first lessee, are and
ought to be performed.

The practice under section 71, differentiated from that under this section.
MacKenzle v. Renshaw, 55 Md. 296.

The act of 1872, ch. 346, referred to in deciding that where a lease provided
that if the rent were more than ninety days in arrear the landlord should
be entitled to immediate possession, ejectment might be brought without a
previous demand. Shanfelter v. Horner, 81 Md. 628.

This section is a substantial re-enactment of the second section of the
statute of 4 George II, ch. 28. The latter statute applies to a perpetual lease
and dispenses with a previous demand of rent and re-entry, and substitutes
service of a copy of the declaration in ejectment, in all cases where the land-
lord has a right by law to re-enter. Campbell v. Shipley, 41 Md. 93 (see
also, dissenting opinion, page 101).

To make a judgment by default a bar to a lease under the statute of 4
George II, ch. 28 (of which this section is a substantial re-enactment), the
record must disclose such facts and circumstances as show that the court
designed to exercise the authority conferred by the statute. Proceedings
having no connection with the statute. When the required affidavit should be
filed. Walter v. Alexander, 2 Gill, 204.

As to the effect of ejectment proceedings by the landlord upon the rights
of a mortgagee of the leasehold interest, see Abrahams v. Tappe, 60 Md. 317.
See notes to sec. 71.

1904. art. 75. sec. 74. 1888, art. 75, sec. 71. 1860, art 75, secs. 46, 47.

1872, ch. 346.

74. When the lands sued for lie contiguous to each other and in
adjoining counties, suit may be brought for the whole in any of said
counties in which any of the defendants reside; and if none of the
defendants reside in any of said counties, then the suit may be brought
in the county where the largest part of the land lies, and the sheriff
and surveyor of the county in which the suit is brought shall have power
to execute and return the warrant of resurvey of all the lands so sued
for, and said sheriff shall also have power to execute a writ of habere
facias possessionem for all of said lands.

The Jurisdiction conferred by this section is general extending to all the
common law courts, its object being the prevention of a multiplicity of suits.
The objection that the narr. does not show that the greater part of the land
was located in the county or city where the suit was brought, can not be
made after verdict. Northern Central Ry. Co. v. Canton Co., 24 Md. 499.

Except in cases provided for by this section, ejectment must be brought
in the court having Jurisdiction whore the property is located. Baltimore v.
Meredith's Ford Turnpike Co., 104 Md. 359.
See notes to sec. 71.