LIMITATION OF ACTIONS 246Y

A fieri facias issued on a judgment within the statutory period and renewed from
term to term, though never delivered to sheriff, keeps judgment alive. Hagerstown
Bank v. Thomas, 35 Md. 515. Cf. Johnson v. Hines, 61 Md. 127.

A bond held to be a "testamentary bond" within the meaning of this section.
State v. Boyd, 2 G. & J. 372.

This section applies to a guardian's bond. State v. Green, 4 G. & J. 384; Green v.
Johnson, 3 G. & J. 389; Scaggs v. Reilly, 88 Md. 65.

A "testamentary bond" held to be the thing in action, and limitations held to apply.
State v. Wright, 4 H. & J. 148.

This section has no application when land has been bought with money supplied
in part by plaintiff on faith of oral promise to convey a portion of the land. Cross
v. Her, 103 Md. 595.

The statute only affects the remedy. The acts of 1715, ch. 23, sec. 6, held to except
state and United States from operation of statute. Swearingen v. United States, 11
G. & J. 377.

The Lord Proprietary held not to be barred by limitations in a suit on a bond. Lady
Baltimore v. Evans, 4 H. & McH. 483. See also Kelly v. Greenfield, 2 H. & McH. 144.

A lapse of more than 12 years since the breach of a covenant to give bonds for
deferred payments, does not bar right of action on breaches of covenant to pay annually,
when latter have occurred within twelve years before suit brought. Keefer v. Zimmer-
man, 22 Md. 287.

Where suit is brought on a bond within twelve years, the bond is admissible in
evidence at trial after expiration of twelve years. Hammond v. Denton, 1 H. & McH.
200.

The object of this section was not to prohibit putting in evidence a bill or bond
of over twelve years' standing, except in cases where it was itself the foundation of
the action. When an express promise is proved, bill or bond may be offered in
evidence after twelve years. Lamar v. Manro, 10 G. & J. 61 (based on act of 1715,
ch. 23).

Where there was a stay of execution, a judgment was held not to be barred. Johnson
v. Hines, 61 Md. 128.

This section held inapplicable because of act of 1777, ch. 15, sec. 7, suspending
temporarily operation of statute. Ringgold v. Cannell, 2 H. & McH. 410. See also
Johns v. Lane, 3 H. & McH. 398.

No execution can be issued on a judgment of condemnation in attachment after
twelve years from its date. Johnson v. Foran, 59 Md. 461.

A plea that debt did not accrue within three years is inapplicable to a judgment.
Weber v. Fickey, 47 Md. 201. And see Duvall v. Pearson, 18 Md. 505.

This section was held a bar in the following cases: Harwood v. Rawlings, 4 H.
& J. 127; Schell v. State, 3 H. & J. 538; Hall v. Creswell, 12 G. & J. 48.

Act of 1818, ch. 216, repealed saving clause in so far as it applied to persons "be-
yond the seas." The court construed act of 1818 to give such persons three years
. from time of passage of act within which to bring suit. Garrison v. Hill, 81 Md. 558.
See also Mason v. Union Mills Co., 81 Md. 450; Frey v. Kirk, 4 G. & J. 521.

For cases dealing with this section, but now apparently inapplicable because of
changes in the law, see Knight v. Brawner, 14 Md. 7; Swearingen v. United States,
11 G. & J. 373. (See also sec. 7.)

Cited but not construed in Lambson v. Moffett, 61 Md. 429; Coombs v. Jordon,
3 Bl. 327; Willard v. Wood, 135 U. S. 309.

As to how the statute should be pleaded, see notes to sec. 1.

Re. persons under disability, see notes to sec. 2. See secs. 1 and 6, and notes.

See notes to art. 26, sec. 21.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 4. 1912, sec. 4. 1904, sec. 4. 1888, sec. 4. 1715, ch. 23, secs. 4, 5.

4. No person absenting himself from this State or that shall remove
from county to county after any debt contracted whereby the creditor
may be at an uncertainty of finding out such person or his effects shall
have any benefit of any limitation herein contained, but nothing contained
in this section shall debar any person from removing himself or family
from one county to another for his convenience, or shall deprive any person
leaving this State for the time herein limited of the benefit thereof, he
leaving effects sufficient and known for the payment of his just debts in
the hands of some person who will assume the payment thereof to. his
creditors.

Intent of legislature is that limitations should not attach against a creditor where
debtor is absent from state at time cause of action accrues. If, however, after such
accrual, debtor is in the state and thus affords creditor an opportunity to prosecute
79