2Y92 ARTICLE 75

nothing more; and facts only shall be stated and not arguments, or infer-
ences, or matter of law or of evidence, or of which the court takes notice
ex officio.

Demurrers dealt with.

Under secs. 2 to 8 a demurrer to entire declaration will be overruled if there is
one count sufficient in substance. (See also sec. 11.) Spencer v. Trafford, 42 Md. 15.

The statement of a multiplicity of facts constituting the defense and material to
its collusiveness, even if there was surplusage, is no ground of demurrer under this
and the following sections. Deford v. Hewlett, 49 Md. 62.

In a suit on an executor's bond, the will is a mere matter of evidence which, under
this section, need not be set out. Ruby v. State, 55 Md. 488.

A declaration in trespass q. c. f. alleging opening of plaintiff's mines, held sufficient
under this and following section. Barton Coal Co. v. Cox, 39 Md. 33.

A declaration held too general and indefinite. Gent v. Cole, 38 Md. 113.

Pleas held demurrable under this section, because they stated conclusions or matters
of law. Aetna Indemnity Co. v. Fuller Co., 111 Md. 341.

A replication upheld under this section and secs. 3 and 28. Gott v. State, 44 Md. 336.

A declaration in a suit under art. 67 of Code growing out of death of infant child,
held to be sufficient in view of this and following section. American Express Co. v.
Denowitch, 132 Md. 74.

Plea in ejectment that defendant is holding and in possession of property under
provisions of original lease which is still in force and effect, is bad because it involves
conclusion of law. Feldmeyer v. Werntz, 119 Md. 290.

Generally.

This section is only declaratory of common law, and is based on necessity of
informing adverse party of what is to be proved in order to give him opportunity
to answer or traverse it. Mills v. Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co., 111 Md. 262; Pearce v.
Watkins, 68 Md. 538; Gent v. Cole, 38 Md. 113.

Secs. 2 to 8 were intended to prevent technical proceedings, and to regard only
matters of substance. Spencer v. Trafford, 42 Md. 15; Ordway v. Central Bank, 47 Md.
261 (concurring opinion); Cumberland, etc., R. R. Co. v. Slack, 45 Md. 178; Blackburn
v. Beall, 21 Md. 229; Felty v. Young, 18 Md. 168.

The allegation of warranty of particular chattel held to be sustained under this
and following section, by proof of warranty of several chattels. McCeney v. Duvall,
21 Md. 184.

This section referred to in construing sec. 28, sub-sees. 34 and 35—see notes thereto.
Bottomly v. Bottomly, 80 Md. 162.

This section referred to in construing sec. 9. Shpritz v. Balto. Trust Co., 151 Md. 513.

As to powers of Court of Appeals re forms of process, writs, pleadings, etc., see
art. 26, sec. 35.

Demurrer to replication upheld under this section and secs. 3 and 8. Bitting v.
Home Ins. Co., 161 Md. 56.

As to pleading in equity, see art. 16, sec. 161, et seq.

As to forms of pleading, see sec. 28. See notes to sec. 3.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 3. 1912, sec. 3. 1904, sec. 3. 1888, sec. 3. 1856, ch. 112, secs. 35, 52, 69.
1870, ch. 420. 1872, ch. 346. 1924, ch. 551.

3. Any declaration which contains a plain statement of the facts
necessary to constitute a ground of action shall be sufficient, and any plea
necessary to form a legal defense shall be sufficient, without reference to
mere form; this to apply to replications, rejoinders and all subsequent
pleadings; provided, that every action for damages wherein the judgment
or any part thereof, which may be recoverable, shall inure to the benefit of
any person claiming the same by reason of subrogation, shall be prosecuted
in the name or names of the real party or parties in interest so claiming
by subrogation; and upon petition of any defendant to said suit or action,
the Court shall order any person having such right by subrogation to be
made a party plaintiff.

Declaration alleging negligence by dentist in filling tooth held sufficient under this
section. Fink v. Steele, 166 Md. 354.

A declaration in trespass sustained under this section and secs. 28 and 26—see notes
to the latter section. The substance, not the form, of pleading is the controlling con-
sideration. Lapp v. Stanton, 116 Md. 199.