Case Name: Susanna Johns against John Lane
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1795-10
Citations: 3 Md. 398
Docket Number: 
Parties: Susanna Johns against John Lane.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 3
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1795.
Susanna Johns against John Lane.
THIS was an action of debt, on a writing obligatory, dated the 17th of October, 1770. The original writ issued on the 17th of yanuary, 1791. The defendant pleaded the act of limitations. To this the plaintiff replied, that the original writ issued on the 17th of yanuary, 1791, and by the death of the sheriff the writ was not returned; that an alias writ issued the 20th of yum, 1791, and was returned non esi, that a pluries writ issued on the 8th of December, 1791, upon which the defendant was arrested, and to which he appeared. And although the writing obligatory aforesaid was made on the 17th of October, 3770, yet, at a meeting of the delegates on the 26th of yuly, it was resolved that no suit should be brought without the license or permission of the committee of observation of the county. That by an act of assembly, entitled 14 An act to open the courts of justice, and for other purposes,” passed at a session held on the 5th of February, 1777, it was enacted that all that space of time, from the 26th of yuly, 1775, to the 1st of yuly, 1777, should not'be reckoned as part of the time limited by law for bringing or prosecuting actions or suits which was restricted from being brought by any of the said resolves; or should any part of the time from the 26th of yuly, 1775, to the last day of August, 1777, be taken or estimated in the year and.day limited by law for issuing executions on judgments ; and that if the act of limitations hath been, or should be, pleaded, in any of the cases aforesaid, it should, and might, be lawful for the plaintiff to give that act in evidence. That by the act of October session, 1780, entitled 44 An act for calling out of circulation the quota of this state ol the bills,of credit issued by congress, and the bills of credit emitted by acts of assembly under the old government, and by the resolves of convention,” all that space of time from the 1st of July, 1777, to the passing of that act, should not be considered as part of the time limited by law for bringing suits, and that for debts contracted before the 1st of September, 1776, and after that day, and before the 12th of July then last, no suits should be brought therefor in less than two years from the passing of that law, unless the debtor shall neglect or refuse to pay the interest; and that the said time should not be taken as part of the time limited by law for prosecuting suits. That by the act of April session, 1782, entitled 66 An act to prevent suits on certain debts for a limited time,” no suit to be brought for debts contracted before the 1st of September, 1776, or between that day and the 12th of June, 1780, before the 1st of January, 1784, unless, &c. And that the time between the passing of that act and the 1st of January, 1784, not to be taken as part of the time limited by law for bringing suits, &c.

Opinion:
The case was submitted to the court upon the act of limitations, and The Court determined that by the act of April, 1782, c. S3, s. 5. eight years, five months and five days were saved, to wit, from the 26th of July, 1775, to the 1st of January, 1784, and therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff.