2796 ARTICLE 75

Certain reasons assigned in support of motion in arrest of judgment, held to involve
matters of form only, and this section applied. Eakle v. Clarke, 30 Md. 326. And
see Campbell v. Webb, 11 Md. 478.

The last clause of this section applied. Davis v. Carroll, 71 Md. 569; Kellenbeck v.
State, 10. Md. 437.

A judgment under practice act of 1864 applicable to Baltimore City will not be
arrested because claim was not filed with declaration. Loney v. Bailey, 43 Md. 16.

The judgment will not be arrested because there are two counts in the declaration,
both of which are good. Streeks v. Dyer, 39 Md. 428.

For cases involving art. 75, sec. 9 of the Code of 1860, see Keller v. Stevens, 66
Md. 134; Northern Central R. R. Co. v. Mills, (fi Md. 363; Loney v. Bailey, 43 Md.
16; Gent v. Coel, 38 Md. 114; Blackburn y. Beall, 21 Md. 230.

Cited but not construed in Gaither v. Wilmer, 71 Md. 366; Montgomery Bus Lines v.
Diehl, 158 Md. 243.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 12. 1912, sec. 10. 1904, sec. 10. 1888, sec. 10. 1856, ch. 112, sec. 89.

1888, ch. 547.

12. The plaintiff in any action may plead in answer to the plea, or any
subsequent pleading of the defendant, as many several matters as he shall
think necessary to sustain his action; and the defendant in any action may
plead, in answer to the declaration or other subsequent pleading of the
plaintiff, as many several matters as he shall think necessary for his de-
fense; provided, that the pleading of the party be consistent with his
previous allegation and not a departure therefrom.

Not objectionable under this section for defendant at once to offer two defenses,
one that there was agreement that services were to be rendered without cost, and the
other accord and satisfaction. Surratt v. Wagner, 161 Md. 159.

This section does not change rule of common law that duplicity should be taken
advantage of by demurrer. When plea is bad for duplicity. State v, McNay, 100
Md. 625.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 13. 1912, sec. 10A. 1914, ch. 68.

13. In all cases in which a defendant shall plead a dilatory plea, and
such dilatory plea shall be overruled or disallowed upon demurrer to or
traverse of the same, the defendant who has so pleaded shall thereupon
have the right to plead over to the merits of the case without withdrawing
his dilatory plea, and upon appeal or writ of error he shall be entitled to
have the questions of law arising upon his dilatory plea decided and deter-
mined as fully to every intent as if he had not pleaded over to the merits.
Reason of this section. In Maryland pleas to jurisdiction and pleas in bar cannot
be submitted to jury at same time; this section held to have no application. O'Brien
v. State, 126 Md. 283.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 14. 1912, sec. 11. 1904, sec. 11. 1888, sec. 11. 1785, ch. 80, sec. 3.

14. No plea of "non est factum" shall be received in any action, unless
the party for whom such plea be tendered verify the same by affidavit, or
unless the defendant being heir, executor or administrator of the person
alleged to have made the deed obtain leave from the court, upon showing
just cause, to put in such plea.

This section was cited as being applicable in separate opinion in Surratt v. State,
167 Md. 367.

This section requires a plea that alleged deeds are not defendant's deeds to be
sworn to; as issue was joined on a plea unsworn to, it was treated as sufficient.
Conowingo Land Co. v. McGaw, 124 Md. 652.

The execution of a bond can only be denied by plea of non est factum, which must
be verified by oath except as provided in this section. State v. Duvall, 83 Md. 124.

It was unnecessary to determine whether plea of non est factum was verified by
affidavit, since issue had been joined on it, and certain other pleas were demurred to.
Milburn v. State, 1 Md. 12.

See sec. 4.