2906 ARTICLE 93.

104 Md. 334; Melitch v. United Rwys. Co., 121 Md. 463; W., B. & A. R. Co. v.
State, 136 Md. 120; White v. Safe Dep. & Tr. Co., 140 Md. 598.

Money collected by administrator under this section for damages to deceased
and his estate must be duly accounted for like other assets; contra as to damages
recovered by administrator under statute of another jurisdiction (similar to those
recoverable in Maryland under article 67), on account of death of deceased. Dron-
enburg v. Harris, 108 Md. 616.

Suit may not be brought under this article or under art. 67, sec. 1, or art. 75, sec.
29, by husband of woman who was killed by man, since deceased, against personal
representative of latter. " Actio personalis moritur cum persona." Meaning of
" injuries to the person." Demczuk v. Jenifer, 138 Md. 490. And see White v. Safe
Dep. & Tr. Co., 140 Md. 599.

An action for alienation of wife's affections is an injury to the person within ex-
ception of the second clause of this section relative to suits against executors and
administrators. Meaning of " injuries to the person." The latter part of this sec-
tion may be referred to in construing the first portion. White v. Safe Dep. & Tr.
Co., 140 Md. 593.

The words " personal action " construed. The act of 1798, ch. 101, held to include
action of trespass q. c. f. Kennerly v. Wilson, 1 Md. 107. As to trover, see Brum-
mett v. Golden, 9 Gill, 97.

The act of 1888, ch. 262, held to have no application where the plaintiff died be-
fore its passage. Harvey v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 70 Md. 324.

The act of 1861, ch. 44, strictly construed. That act had no application to actions
for malicious prosecution. Clark v. Carroll, 59 Md. 182. And see White v. Safe
Dep. & Tr. Co., 140 Md. 603.

See notes to sec. 82.

For the statute regulating suits for negligence resulting in death, for the benefit of
the family of the deceased, see art. 67, sec. 1, et seq.

For forms of declarations and pleas in suits by and against executors and admin-
istrators, see art. 75, sec. 28, sub-sec. 90, et seq.

As to the plea by an administrator of " insufficient assets," and proceedings there-
after, see art. 26, sec. 26, et seq.

As to suits before a justice of the peace where executors or administrators are
parties, see art. 52, secs. 9 and 10. See also art. 52, sec. 62.

As to abatement in the court of appeals, see art. 5, sec. 81, et seq.

An. Code. sec. 105. 1904, sec. 104. 1888, sec. 105. 1720, ch. 24, see. 2. 1838, ch. 329.

107. No creditor shall bring a suit upon an administration or testa-
mentary bond for any debt or damages due from or recovered against the
decedent before a non est on a summons is returned against the adminis-
trator, or a fieri facias returned nulla, bona by the sheriff of the county
where the administration was granted, or where the effects of such deceased
lie, or such othes apparent insolvency or insufficiency of the estate of such
administrator as shall, in the judgment of the court, render such credi-
tor remediless by any other reasonable means save that of suing such bond.

This section limits the broad language of sec. 103. This section is applicable to
creditors whose debts have been established, and a declaration must allege a com-
pliance with prescribed conditions. Mertens v. Moore, 108 Md. 637. As to allega-
tions of narr., see also Dorsey v. State, 4 G. & J. 477; Laidler v: State, 2 H. & G.
280; Seegar y. State, 5 H. & J. 488. Cf. Laidler v. State, 2 H. & G. 282.

For a replication to a plea setting up a failure to comply with this section held
sufficient as demonstrating that creditor was remediless save by suing bond, see
Iglehart v. State, 2 G. & J. 245.

The act of 1720, ch. 24, is to be liberally construed—design thereof. Although
administrator be returned non est, if before suit brought on bond he voluntarily
appears, such suit on bond cannot be maintained. State v. Jones, 8 Md. 91.

This section has no application where the bond is simply conditioned upon the
payment of all debts, legacies, etc. Duvall v. Snowden, 7 G. & J. 433.

This section has no application in creditors' suit. Emory v. Seth, 2 Bl. 542.

Cited but not construed in Seighman v. Marshall, 17 Md. 571; Brown v. Mur-
dock, 16 Md. 531.