ART. 75] EQUITABLE DEFENSES. 1673

on a plat used for illustration under section 80. New York, etc., Co. v.
Jones, 94 Md. 33.

For a case dealing with this section as it stood in the code of 1860, see
Clary v. Kimmell. 18 Md. 246.

See notes to sec. 71.

Equitable Defenses.

1904. art. 75, sec. 86. 1888, art. 75, sec. 83. 1888, ch. 547.
86. It shall be lawful for the defendant in any action at law
(including plaintiff in replevin where avowry or cognizance is made) in
which, if judgment were obtained, he would be entitled to relief against
such judgment on equitable grounds, to plead the facts which entitle
him to such relief by way of defense, and the court in which said
action is pending is hereby empowered to receive such defense by way
of plea; provided, that such plea shall begin with the words: "For
defense on equitable grounds," or words to that effect.

When plea under this section is good.

A plea under this section is not good unless it sets up such facts as would
entitle the defendant to relief in equity against the Judgment if recovered. That
the conveyance to the plaintiff in an action of ejectment was fraudulent as
against a creditor of the grantor through whom the defendant claims, is not
a good plea under this section. Williams v. Peters, 72 Md. 586. And see
Urner v. Sollenberger, 89 Md. 337.

A defense which is good at law can not be pleaded under this section.
Falck v. Barlow, 110 Md. 161; Albert v. Freas, 103 Md. 591; Robey v. State,
94 Md. 71.

A plea under this section held defective for obscurity, and for failing to
set out "the facts which entitle the defendant to relief". Shartzer v. Park
Association, 86 Md. 337.

A tenant who enters into possession under a lease for ten years, not
acknowledged or recorded, paying a yearly rent, becomes a tenant by the
year, and in an action of ejectment, such tenant has a defense at law which,
therefore, can not be set up under this section. Falck v. Barlow, 110 Md.
161.

Estoppel in pais is available as a defense at law as well as in equity, and,
therefore, can not be pleaded under this section. Albert v. Freas, 103 Md.
591.

A plea under this section must begin with the words "For defense on
equitable grounds," or words to the like effect. Zihlman v. Cumberland
Glass Co., 74 Md. 311.

For a plea under this section in an action on a sheriffs bond, held defective
because it was good at law, see Eobey v. State, 94 Md. 71. Cf. Miles v State.
73 Md. 400.

Generally.

This section does not affect the Jurisdiction of equity to cancel or reform a
contract where a bill alleges that it was procured by fraud and that it does
not express the real agreement of the parties. This section does not confer
upon courts of law the power of cancellation or reformation. Design of this
section. It does not destroy the distinctions between law and equity. Con-
ner v. Groh, 90 Md. 682. And see Whitaker v. McDanlel. 113 Md. 392; Pearl
Hominy Co. v. Liuthlcum, 112 Md. 32; Urner v. Sollenberger, 89 Md. 337;
Taylor v. State. 73 Md. 222; Williams v. Peters, 72 Md. 586.

The Jurisdiction of equity (to restrain an action of ejectment), denied on
the ground that the defendant could assert under this section the same
matter set up by the bill in equity. Park Association v. Shartzer. 83 Md.
13; Shartzer v. "Park Association, 86 Md. 337. Cf. Williams v. Peters, 72
Md. 586; Whitaker v. Mcpaniel, 113 Md. 392.

A defendant in ejectment is not always precluded from going into equity
after Judgment, because he did not interpose a plea by way of equitable