PLEADINGS, PRACTICE AND PROCESS AT LAW 2793

This section referred to in upholding a declaration in a suit for personal injuries.
Phelps v. Howard County, 117 Md. 178.

Counts of a declaration in assumpsit for breach of several contracts for sale of
gasoline held sufficient. Penn Oil Co. v. Triangle P. & G. Co., 136 Md. 565.

The object of all pleading is that parties litigant may be mutually apprised of
matters in controversy. Common counts held insufficient and special counts also in-
sufficient either as setting up claim on policy of insurance or an action of deceit.
Pearce v. Watkins, 68 Md. 538.

Under this section, no more of a contract need be set out than pertains to obligation,
breach of which is complained of, but if alternative qualifies the obligation, then the
whole should be set out according to the legal effect. A variance not made out.
Caledonian Ins. Co. v. Traub, 80 Md. 220. And see Crichton v. Smith, 34 Md. 47.

A declaration alleging a trespass in the erection of a telegraph pole in front of
premises of which plaintiff was in possession, and consequent obstruction of use of
said premises, though not alleging mode and manner of obstruction, held sufficient
under this section. Chesapeake, etc., Telephone Co. v. MacKenzie, 74 Md. 42.

A declaration in a suit on an executor's bond which was substantially set out in
the narr., held sufficient. Ruby v. State, 55 Md. 488.

A declaration in an action on an appeal bond held sufficient under this section.
Everett v. State, 28 Md. 205.

Averment in action of deceit of loss or damage growing out of false representations,
held sufficient under this section and sec. 8. McAleer v. Horsey, 35 Md. 458.

A declaration on a guaranty held sufficient under this section and sec. 8. Mitchell
v. McCleary, 42 Md. 376.

A declaration alleging that plaintiff as possessor of a distillery was entitled to flow
of stream of water for working same and that defendant befouled said stream and
rendered it unfit for plaintiff's use, held sufficient. Price v. Lawson, 74 Md. 507.

This section is applicable to a plea of limitations. Wallace v. Schaub, 81 Md. 597.

Pleas of limitation upheld under this section and sec. 28. Spencer v. B. & O. R. R.,
126 Md. 202.

See notes to secs. 2 and 5. As to forms of pleading, see sec. 28.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 4. 1912, sec. 3A. 1918, ch. 392.

4. In all actions ex contractu there shall be no distinction in the plead-
ings by reason of the presence or absence of a seal upon any instrument
or writing involved in the case, except in so far as the presence or absence
of a seal may affect the substantive rights of the parties (such as necessity
for a valuable consideration, period of limitation, etc.), as distinct from
matters of procedure; and counts for recovery upon sealed instruments
may be joined with counts for recovery upon unsealed contracts, express
or implied; and there shall be but one form of action for recovery upon
any cause of action arising ex contractu or quasi ex contractu, namely,
the action of assumpsit, in which it shall be sufficient for the plaintiff to
state briefly in his declaration the facts essential to recovery (but nothing
hereunder shall be construed as abolishing the use of the common counts).
Provided, that no period of limitations now prescribed by law with respect
to any cause of action now existing or hereafter arising shall be altered
by this section. And in any such suit at law it shall be sufficient for the
defendant to file a general issue plea that the defendant never was indebted
as alleged, or that the defendant never promised as alleged, under either
of which forms of plea all matters of defense and discharge shall be ad-
missible in evidence, except any matters which could only be availed of by
a special plea, or by a more express denial than such general issue plea,
in an action of assumpsit prior to the enactment of this section.

And the provisions of this section shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the
pleadings when the defendant relies upon matter ex contractu in a plea
of set-off.

In action on guaranty expressly described as specialty, general issue pleas appropriate
to action in assumpsit on simple contract held to be not demurrable. General Petroleum
Corp. v. Seaboard Terminal Corp., 19 F. Supp. 882.

So far as procedure is concerned, no distinction in pleadings due to presence or
absence of seal upon instrument. See notes to art. 13, sec. 47. Citizens' Natl Bank v.
Custis, 153 Md. 242.