PLEADINGS, PRACTICE AND PROCESS AT LAW. 2371

There must be a specific denial of partnership, incorporation or execution of any
written instrument, or such matter is admitted. The filing of general issue plea is
not a sufficient denial. Fifer v. Clearfield Co., 103 Md. 3; Banks v. McCosker,
82 Md. 525; Junkins v. Sullivan, 110 Md. 545; Abbott v. Bowers, 98 Md. 527.

Where the declaration charges the execution of an agreement by A as the agent
of B, and defendant does not in his pleas specifically deny execution of such agree-
ment, such execution is admitted, but not that A was the agent of B with authority
to bind the latter as alleged in the narr. Fifer v. Clearfield Co., 103 Md. 3; Tippett v.
Meyers, 127 Md. 530.

This sub-section has no application where there is no allegation in narr, of the
execution of any instrument, but mere averment that defendant " guaranteed pay-
ment of the mortgage debt." Commonwealth Bank v. Kirkland, 102 Md. 668.

In a suit brought under a local practice act, the denial in defendant's affidavit of
the execution of an instrument filed with the narr., compels plaintiff to prove such
execution. The procedure provided by practice act is complete in itself, and exclusive
of this sub-section. Horner v. Plumley, 97 Md. 282; Farmers' Bank v. Hunter, 97
Md. 150; Nicholson v. Snyder, 97 Md. 420; Engel v. Schloss, 134 Md. 76. (See this
case also as to burden of proving the execution of a promissory note, and prayers
relative thereto.)

Under this sub-section, mere production of promissory note sued on makes a
prima facie case which, unless rebutted, entitles plaintiff to recover. Frederick
Institution v. Michael, 81 Md. 505 (dissenting opinion).

The defendant's signature to a note proved, although such proof was not required
under this section. Shaffer v. Bond, 129 Md. 649.

This sub-section applied in a suit on a promissory note under practice act for
Baltimore city. Abbott v. Bowers, 98 Md. 527. And see McCarty v. Harris, 93 Md.
741; Junkins v. Sullivan, 110 Md. 545.

This sub-section applied in a suit on promissory note and guaranty. Booth v.
Jrving Nat. Exch. Bank, 116 Md. 672; Herrman v. Combs, 119 Md. 48.

Where a policy of insurance which is the basis of action is set out in declaration
and its execution is not denied in plea, its execution is admitted for purposes of
the action. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Devoe, 98 Md. 588; Citizens' Ins. Co. v. Cono-
wingo Co., 113 Md. 438.

This sub-section applied so as to obviate proof of incorporation of defendant.
Norfolk, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hoover, 79 Md. 267.

Cited but not construed in Zihlman v. Cumberland Glass Co., 74 Md. 307.

For section applicable to cases before justices of the peace, see art. 52, sec. 35.

(109) Whenever the ownership of any motor vehicle is alleged in the
pleadings in any action or matter at law, the same shall be admitted for the
purpose of said action or matter, unless the ownership shall be denied by
the next succeeding pleading of the opposite party or parties.1

II.

PRACTICE.2
Abatement and Revivor.

An. Code, sec. 25. 1904, sec. 25. 1888, sec. 24. 1785, ch. 80. 1801, ch. 74. 1815, ch. 149.

1849, ch. 517.

29. No action of ejectment, waste, partition, dower, replevin, or any
personal action, including appeals from judgments rendered by justices

1 Added by act of 1924, ch. 216.

2 As to practice in equity, see art. 16, sec. 154, et seq.

As to the practice before public service commission, see art. 23, secs. 358 and 409.

As to practice in suits against railroad companies for injury to live stock and from fire,
see art. 23, sec. 244, et seq.

As to practice in suits by state to recover gross receipts tax, see art. 81, sec. 178, et seq.

As to practice in suits against a corporation for recovery of bonus tax, see art. 81, sec.
105, et seq.

As to practice in suits upon a tax collector's bond, see art. 81, sec. 81, et seq.; as to
suits against tax collectors, see art. 81, sec. 89, et seq.