GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1793.
THIS was an action of trespass vi et armis, for break» ing and entering the close of the plaintiff, &c.
The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, but pleaded actio non accrevit infra duos annos, instead of actio non accrevit infra tres annos. The plea was de» murred to, and motion made for leave to amend.
M‘Mechen, for the defendant,
cited 3 Term Rep. 124, 2 Wils. 124. Salk. 452. 1 Sid. 21. 333. 1 Wils. 7. 149. 223. 256. Act of Assembly, 1785, c. 80. s. 4. 2 Stra. 734.
Hollingsworth, for the plaintiff,
cited 2 Term Rep. 390. 2 Wils. 253,
on full deliberation and examination of the authorities, determined that as the plea of limitations was not a plea to the merits, it should not be received after the rule day, nor amended if pleaded defectively.
The Chief Justice said that 1 Bl. Rep. and Barnes’s Notes, made the true distinction.
3 Md. 324
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!