MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                                       225

actions. Apparently the distinction was
bordering on obsolescence in 1834 when the
Court of Appeals stated that the distinction
between local and transitory actions
apparently still existed. See Patterson v.
Wilson, 6 G&J 499 (1834) and recently cited

in Superior Construction Co. v. Elmo, 204

Md. 1 (1954).

Originally, whether or not an action was
local determined the venue and forms of
pleading. If objection to improper venue is
not raised, it is cured by the decree. See
Superior Construction Co., supra.

Rules 301, 340, and 370 have modernized the
forms of pleading so that an action is now
commenced by either a Bill of Complaint or a

Declaration, rather than capias ad

respondendum or satisfaciendum, and neither
the replevin nor the ejectment rules require
that venue be specially pleaded as is
normally required in local actions. See 16 &
17 Charles II Ch. 8, note. The special local
action venue requirements have in effect been
abolished with respect to replevin and
ejectment, and to some extent trespass q.c.f.
(see Rules BQ40, T41, and Art. 75, §79
respectively).

SEC. 6-202. ADDITIONAL VENUE PERMITTED.

IN ADDITION TO THE VENUE PROVIDED IN §§ 6-201 OR
6-203, THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE
INDICATED COUNTY:

(1)   DIVORCE - WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES;

(2)    ANNULMENT - WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES
OR WHERE THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY WAS PERFORMED;

(3)   ACTION AGAINST A CORPORATION WHICH HAS
NO PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE STATE - WHERE
THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES;

(4)   REPLEVIN OR DETINUE - WHERE THE PROPERTY
SOUGHT TO BE RECOVERED IS LOCATED;

(5)       ACTION RELATING TO CUSTODY,
GUARDIANSHIP, MAINTENANCE, OR SUPPORT OF A CHILD -