LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 2055

An acknowledgment or new promise, though made on Sunday, revives the debt.
Thomas v. Hunter, 29 Md. 411.

As to entries in books of account by the defendant's agent, removing the bar of
the statute, see Morrison v. Whiteside, 17 Md. 458.

A stockholder cannot revive a debt due by the corporation. Davis v. Gemmell,
73 Md. 537.

For circumstances under which a promise or acknowledgment by one executor
takes case out of statute as to all executors, see Pole v. Simmons, 49 Md. 21; McCann
v. Sloan, 25 Md. 588.

An admission of a debt by an executor, even a judgment against him, cannot
take a debt out of a statute to prejudice of rights of heir. Held that no equitable
lien was established, and hence statute applied. Collinson v. Owens, 6 G. & J. 10.

Where a debt is contracted with one partner, it may be revived by an acknowl-
edgment subsequently made to another partner, suit being on original promise.
Barney v. Smith, 4 H. & J. 495, etc.

So long as the partnership exists, an acknowledgment or promise by one partner
removes bar of statute as to other partners. Abrahams v. Myers, 40 Md. 507.

The promise of one partner, after a dissolution, does not revive a debt once barred,
as against his co-partners. The dictum to contrary in Ward v. Howell, 5 H. & J. 60,
overruled in Ellicott v. Nichols, 7 Gill, 85. Whether a promise was made before
statute attached is question of law. Newman v. McComas, 43 Md. 82; Leonard v.
Hughlett, 41 Md. 387. See also Ellicott v. Nichols, 7 Gill, 100; Seldner v. Mount
Jackson Bank, 66 Md. 494; Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bl. 278.

A contract made by several contractors cannot be taken out of statute by an
acknowledgment by one of them. Lingan y. Henderson, 1 Bl. 278.

As to payments by a co-maker of a joint and several note, taking case out of
statute, see Burgoon v. Bixler, 55 Md. 392. Cf. Wilmer v. Gaither, 68 Md. 343.

Payments by a husband on account of joint note of himself and wife, will not
revive debt as to wife. Wilmer v. Gaither, 68 Md. 343 (quaere, whether this
decision holds good since act of 1898, ch. 457).

The plea of limitations.

How statute should be pleaded. Scaggs v. Reilly, 88 Md. 65; Byrd v. State,
44 Md. 501; Bevans v. McGlocklin, 9 Md. 479; State v. Green, 4 G. & J. 384;
Dent v. Scott, 3 H. & J. 32; Harper v. Hampton, 1 H. & J. 461; Murdock v.
Winter, 1 H. & G. 473; Wooton v. Sprigg, 4 H. & McH. 352; Perkins v. Turner,
1 H. & McH. 400; Moreton v. Harrison, 1 Bl. 491. And see Spencer v. B. & O. R. R.
Co., 126 Md. 200; W., B. & A. R. R. Co. v. Moss, 130 Md. 204.

The statute need not be pleaded to each distinct count in a declaration. Bullen v.
Ridgely, 1 H. & J. 104. Cf. note (a) to this case.

Limitations is not a plea to the merits and cannot be amended or filed after rule
day. Where a declaration is amended, limitations must be pleaded at once, or it
comes too late. Griffin v. Moore, 43 Md. 252; Wall v. Wall, 2 H. & G. 81; Schulze
v. Fox, 53 Md. 42. Cf. Spear v. Griffin, 23 Md. 430.

Plea of limitations cannot be amended, though the amended plea is filed before
the rule day has expired. State v. Green, 4 G. & J. 384.

When leave to file additional pleas is granted, limitation may be pleaded pro-
vided it be done within time originally allowed for pleading. Mitchell v. Sellman,
5 Md. 384.

A plea of limitations is not favored in the law; a party may waive it at his
option. Farmers' Bank v. Sprigg, 11 Md. 398.

An irregularity in the time of filing a plea of limitations is waived by the filing of
a replication to such plea. Stockett v. Sasscer, 8 Md. 377.

Though all parties to a suit waive statute, it may be relied upon by anyone who
comes in and has an interest to protect. Hammond v. Hammond, 2 Bl. 366.

A party whose claim has been rejected or satisfied cannot set up the statute as
against other claims. Cape Sable Co.'s Case, 3 Bl. 672.

Where the corporation is a party to the cause and does not plead the statute, a
stockholder cannot do so. Davis v. Gemmell, 73 Md. 537.

Non-residents may plead limitations. Bannon y. Lloyd, 64 Md. 49.

The personal representative alone can plead limitations to claims against dece-
dent's estate. A trust in a will to pay debts will not revive debts barred at death of
testator, but trustee alone can plead statute. Spencer v. Spencer, 4 Md: Ch. 464.

Limitations cannot be relied upon, unless it is pleaded. Bannon v. Lloyd, 64 Md.
49; Merryman v. State, 5 H. & J. 423 and note (a); Maddox v. State, 4 H. & J. 541.