394 CHANCERY. [ART. 16

second, if by any other person, his affidavit or affirmation thereof made
and signed before a notary public and certified by him; third, the
written admission of the defendant proved to the satisfaction of the
court; and such certificate, affidavit, affirmation or admission shall
state the time and place of service. And any person making a false
affidavit or affirmation as to any such service shall be guilty of perjury,
and any sheriff making a false! certificate as to the sendee of any such
notice shall be liable for making a false return.

Theory of notice by publication. Strict compliance with the requirements
of the statute are required, but questions of whether the non-resident saw the
notice, or was able to respond to it, are immaterial. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 30
Md. 534; Dorsey v. Thompson, 37 Md. 44. Cf. Johnson v. Robertsou, 34 Md.
173.

Proof that the notice required by this section was given, held insufficient,
and a recital of the decree that the order of publication "had been duly
published," held not to cure the defect. Johnson v. Robertson, 31 Md. 488.

An order of publication on a bill to redeem a ground rent, held to substan-
tially describe the property. Hollander v. Central Metal Co., 109 Md. 149.

Where the order of publication was only published for three weeks, instead
of one month (as provided by the act of 1842, ch. 229), the decree was
reversed. Central Bank v. Copeland, 18 Md. 320.

The act of 1896, ch. 38 (providing a method of service in lieu of an order
of publication), does not give equity courts Jurisdiction of non-residents in
actions in personam. Fisher v. Parr, 92 Md. 272.

The act of 1890, ch. 38 (providing a method of service in lieu of an order
of publication), applied. Chappell v. Clarke, 94 Md. 182.

For a case dealing with the act of 1799, ch. 79, section 1, see Burd v. Green-
leaf. 1 Bl. 557.

Cited but not construed in Neale v. Hagthorp, 3 Bl. 573; Buckingham v.
Peddicord, 2 Bl. 457; Contee v. Dawson, 2 Bl. 306.
See notes to sec. 131.

As to the issue of orders of publication by the clerks of the courts having
jurisdiction, see art. 17, sec. 34.

1904, art. 16, sec. 128. 1888, art. 16, sec. 115. 1884, ch. 268.
136. Upon application for a renewal of a lease containing a cove-
nant for renewal, where any person or persons interested in the rever-
sion reserved in said lease, and who should be the party or parties
to the proceedings, is or are unknown, it shall be sufficient to substan-
tially describe such unknown person or persons in the bill as the
unknown person or persons interested in said reversion, by, through or
under the original lessor or lessors, naming him or them; and the court
shall order notice by publication to be given to such unknown person or
persons, according to his or their description in the bill, and the same
proceedings shall be had against such unknown person or persons
as are had against non-resident defendants named in a bill in chan-
cery; and any decree which may be passed shall have the same effect
against such unknown person or persons, whether claiming by descent,
purchase or in any other manner, and against his or their heirs, execu-
tors or administrators and assigns, as if such unknown person or
persons had been made a defendant or defendants by name in said
bill.

See art. 16. sec. 108; also art. 21. sec. 94.