PLEADINGS, PRACTICE AND PROCESS AT LAW 2851

For cases declaring unconstitutional portion of act of 1874, ch. 94, providing that
no case should be removed unless applicant paid costs of the record within sixty days
after passage of the order of removal and caused record to be transmitted within same
period, see Hoyer v. Colton, 43 Md. 423; Knee v. Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co., 87 Md. 632.

Removal of Cases from Courts of Law to Courts of Equity and Vice Versa.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 124. 1912, sec. 115. 1904, sec. 113. 1896, ch. 229.

124. In every case at law or in equity in which it shall appear that
the plaintiff is entitled to some relief or to some remedy, but not in the
particular court, or on the side of the court in which the suit is brought or
the relief is prayed, the plaintiff shall not on that account be non-suited
or the case dismissed; but the case may, in the discretion of the judge pre-
siding in the court in which the suit is pending, at any time, in any action
at law, before the jury retire to consider their verdict, or in a suit in equity,
before the final decree is signed, be removed by an order in writing signed
by the judge or judges there presiding, to such proper court or docket,
either of equity or law, in the same county or city, as the nature thereof
may require, and thereupon such proceedings shall be had, by amendment
of the pleadings and otherwise, as shall conform the case to the course of
the court to which the same shall have been removed, under such general
or special rules as each of such courts may prescribe for the adjustment of
costs, the prevention of delay and the promotion of justice.

This section shows that it is declared policy of the law that where it appears the
plaintiff is entitled to some remedy, his suit shall not be dismissed because he has
invoked aid of wrong tribunal. Safe Deposit Co. v. Cahn, 102 Md. 542.

Case remanded for transfer to common law court for trial, unless lower court finds
it proper to permit amended allegations to justify retaining bill. Levin v. Goodman,
152 Md. 190.

Defendant not entitled to have action at law transferred to court of equity because
defense to action involved complex accounts which could be more effectively pursued
in equity. Johnson & Higgins v. Simpson, 165 Md. 88.

It does not follow that after pleadings have been amended at time case is removed
in conformity with this section, no further amendment of pleadings can be made;
analogy between such a case and issues sent from orphans' court to court of law, denied.
Martin Fertilizer Co. y. Thomas & Co., 135 Md. 638.

This section is constitutional. Insurance Co. of North America v. Schall, 96 Md. 227;
Johnson & Higgins v. Simpson, 163.Md. 582.

No appeal lies from action of the lower court in removing or refusing to remove
case under this section. Summerson v. Schilling, 94 Md. 607; Safe Deposit Co. v. Cahn,
102 Md. 542.

Where upon appeal it was held that plaintiff was not entitled to relief in equity,
case was remanded for further proceedings by lower court under this section. Maryland
Hotel Co. v. Baltimore Engraving Co., 92 Md. 725.

The policy of the law as shown by this section pointed out. Safe Deposit Co. v.
Cahn, 102 Md. 542.

Cited but not construed in Brehm v. Sperry, 92 Md. 408.

As to equitable defenses at law, see sec. 91, et seq.

See sec. 109, et seq.

Replevin.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 125. 1912, sec. 116. 1904, sec. 114. 1888, sec. 108. 1785, ch. 80, sec. 14.

1888, ch. 547.

125. All replevin bonds and retorno habendo bonds may be given by
the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, or on their behalf, and the
clerk shall have power to swear all parties executing such bonds, whether
as principals or securities, as to their pecuniary sufficiency, and may also
interrogate under oath the plaintiff in any replevin touching the value of
the goods and chattels proposed to be replevied, in order to determine the
proper penalty to, be named in the replevin bond. The court, upon return
91