Volume 375, Page 1882 View pdf image (33K) |
1882 ARTICLE 50. The object of act of 1825, ch. 167, is to prevent, costs. Where one of defendants is dead, separate actions may be brought against survivor and representative of de- ceased. Nor does this section prevent only one of obligors being sued, although all obligors are alive and reside in same county. In such case, however, plaintiff will be non-suited if he brings a second suit. (See sec. 3.) Blizzard v. Jacobs, 3 G. & J. 70. Where declaration shows that there is a co-obligor, the non-joinder must be accounted for, or declaration is bad. Kent v. Holliday, 17 Md. 393; State v. Wheeler, 14 Md. 109; Merrick v. Bank of Metropolis, 8 Gill, 60. See also Annapolis, etc., Institution v. Bannon, 68 Md. 461.
This section has no application to actions ex delicto. Mitchell v. Smith, 4 Md. 406. An. Code, sec. 3. 1904, sec. 3. 1888, sec. 3. 1825, ch. 167, sec. 2.
3. If a joint obligor be dead when the suit is brought his representative An. Code, sec. 4. 1904, sec. 4. 1888, sec. 4. 1825, ch. 167, sec. 3.
4. If either of the obligors against whom a joint action shall be brought
In an action against two defendants on a joint obligation, if one of them dies,
Object of this section. The creditor may sue both survivor and the representative, See sec. 11. An. Code, sec. 5. 1904, sec. 5. 1888, sec. 5. 1825, ch. 167, sec. 4.
5. If any of the obligors against whom a joint action is brought and An. Code, sec. 6. 1904, sec. 6. 1888, sec. 6. 1825, ch. 167, sec. 7.
6. If the obligors in any bond, penal or single bill reside in different
Where obligors live in different counties, creditor may sue in both or either.
See sec. 2.
|
||||
Volume 375, Page 1882 View pdf image (33K) |
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.