Baltimore Publishing Co. v. Hooper

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We did not call upon the appellee, for it seemed very clear to us that the affidavit annexed to the pleas filed in this case was not in compliance with either the letter or the spirit of the Act of 1886, chap. 184. Now, this Act provides that in suits upon contract the plaintiff, upon malting affidavit as therein required, shall he entitled to judgment “at any time after fifteen days from the return day to which the defendant shall ¹¹⁷ have been summoned, although he may have pleaded, unless such plea contains a good defence,” and unless the defendant shall make oath “that every plea so pleaded is true, and shall further state the amount of the plaintiff’s demand, if anything, admitted to be due or owing, and the amount disputed; and further that the affiant verily believes the defendant will be able at the trial of the cause to produce sufficient evidence to support the said plea as to the portion disputed,” &c. The object of this Act was, as we have said in Adler vs. Crook, et al., 68 Md., 494 , to enforce the speedy collection of debts in the City of Baltimore, and to that end it provides that the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment after fifteen days from the return day, unless the defendant shall make oath that every plea