1050 ARTICLE 4.

or incorporation, and the genuineness of such signature shall be deemed
to be admitted for the purposes of said cause, unless the said affidavit
shall further state that the affiant knows, or has good reason to believe,

such allegation of co-partnership or incorporation to be untrue, or that
such signature was not written by or by the authority of the person whose
signature it purports to be. In case any part of the debt or damages

claimed to be admitted to be due, the plaintiff shall be entitled forth-
with to an entry of judgment therefor, with costs in the discretion of the

court, to the time of entry of such judgment, and if the amount so ad-
mitted to be due shall not be below the jurisdiction of the court, the plain-
tiff may at once have execution therefor, and upon such entry of judgment
the plaintiff may join issue or reply to the pleas as to the disputed por-
tion, and the case shall be proceeded with as to such disputed portion in
the same manner as if the suit had been originally instituted for the
recovery of the same; and the court shall have jurisdiction as to such
disputed portion in all cases where the amount originally claimed shall
be within the jurisdiction of the court, but if either judgment in the case
be below the jurisdiction of the court, no execution shall issue from that

court on the same, and the provisions of Section 17 of Article 26 or the
Code of Public General Laws shall apply thereto; yet if the sum of the
two judgments shall equal such jurisdiction they may then be included in
an execution issued from that court; provided, that the court for good
cause shown, may, by its order in writing, passed at any time before judg-
ment, extend the time for filing such pleas and affidavits, which extension
shall suspend, until the expiration thereof, the plaintiff's right to enter
judgment under this section.

Smithson v. U. S. Telg. Co., 29 Md. 162. Jones v. Freeman, 29 Md. 273. State,
use of Bouldin, v. Steibel, 31 Md. 34. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Hoeske, 32 Md. 317.
King v. Hicks, 32 Md. 460. Jones v. Barnett, 35 Md. 258. Keen v. Whittington, 40
Md. 489. Baltimore v. Ideson, 47 Md. 542. Traber v. Traber, 50 Md. 1. Thorne
v. Fox, 67 Md. 67. Adler v. Crook, 68 Md. 494. Hutton v. Marx. 69 Md. 252. May v.
Wolvington, 69 Md. 117. Thillman v. Shadrick, 69 Md. 528. Gemmill v. Davis, 71
Md. 458. Huntington v. Emery, 74 Md. 67. Baltimore Pub. Co. v. Hooper, 76 Md.
115. Sanborn v. Mullen, 77 Md. 480. Laubheimer v. Nail, 88 Md. 1741 Griffith v.
Adams, 95 Md. 175. Singer v. Fidelity & Dep't Co.. 96 Md. 224. Farmers, &c., Bank
y. Hunter, 97 Md. 148. Horner v. Plumley, 97 Md. 277. Codd Co. v. Parker, 97,
Md. 323-325. Smith v. Hallwood Cash Reg. Co., 97 Md. 354. Nicholson v. Snyder,

97 Md 419. Deved v. Carrington, 98 Md. 378. Abbott v. Bowers, 98 Md. 525.
Steuart v. Chappell, 98 Md. 530. Colbourn Bros. v. Boulton, 100 Md. 353, 354.
Miller v. Michaels, 101 Md. 188. Commonwealth Bank v. Kirkland, 102 Md. 662.
Waldeck Co. T. Emmart, 127 Md. 470. Engel v. Schlosa, 134 Md. 72. Jamaica
Trading Co. v. Dinning. 141 Md. 318. Rullman v. Rullman, 148 Md. 140. Com.
Credit Co. v. Schuck, 151 Md. 367. Lipscomb v. Zink, 151 Md. 431. Fick v. Towers,
152 Md. 336. Com. Credit Co. v. Rozler, 152 Md. 270. See note, page 219, Baltimore
City Code (1879).

NOTES OF DECISIONS OF BALTIMORE CITY COURTS.

(1) The affidavit required of defendants, does not apply to those cases in which
the defendants are executors.

(2) The Baltimore City Court lias jurisdiction over a suit to recover the even
sum of $100.00, when interest thereon is recoverable as of right. Mutual Life Ins.
Co. v. Hantske, Daily Record, December 15, 1900.

(3) Practice Act of Baltimore City. A special count which states no express

contract to pay money, or any facts from which such a contract can be implied,