Opinion of the Court.

of or assented to the agreement at the time it was made, nor having since done or omitted any act on the faith of it, it follows that, by the law as declared by this court, and prevailing in the District of Columbia, the mortgagee cannot maintain an action at law against the grantee. Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610, 620, 622; and National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123, there cited. Moreover, if the grantee's liability was in assumpsit only, it was, in any view of the case, barred by the statute of limitations in three years." And the judgment of the Supreme Court of the District was accordingly affirmed. Willard v. Wood, 135 U. S. 309, 314.

In Keller v. Ashford, above referred to, it was held that although the contract of the purchaser to pay the mortgage, being made to the mortgagor and for his benefit only, created no direct obligation of the purchaser to the mortgagee, yet that in a court of equity the mortgagee may avail himself of the right of the mortgagor against the purchaser upon the familiar principle in equity that a creditor shall have the benefit of any obligation or security given by the principal to the surety for the payment of the debt. And it was said: "The doctrine of the right of a creditor to the benefit of all securities given by the principal to the surety for the payment of the debt does not rest upon any liability of the principal to the creditor, or upon any peculiar relation of the surety towards the creditor; but upon the ground that the surety, being the creditor's debtor, and in fact occupying the relation of surety to another person, has received from that person an obligation or security for the payment of the debt, which a court of equity will therefore compel to be applied to that purpose at the suit of the creditor. Where the person ultimately held liable is himself a debtor to the creditor, the relief awarded has no reference to that fact, but is grounded wholly on the right of the creditor to avail himself of the right of the surety against the principal. If the person, who is admitted to be the creditor's debtor stands, at the time of receiving the security, in the relation of surety to the person from whom he receives it, it is quite immaterial whether that person is or ever has been a debtor of the principal creditor, or whether

Opinion of the Court.

the relation of suretyship or the indemnity to the surety existed, or was known to the creditor, when the debt was contracted. In short, if one person agrees with another to be primarily liable for a debt due from that other to a third person, so that as between the parties to the agreement the first is the principal and the second the surety, the creditor of such surety is entitled, in equity, to be substituted in his place for the purpose of compelling such principal to pay the debt."

133 U. S. 623.

After citing many cases and quoting from Crowell v. St. Barnabas Hospital, 12 C. E. Green, 650, 655, the opinion continued (p. 625): "The decisions of this court, cited for the defendant, are not only quite consistent with this conclusion, but strongly tend to define the true position of a mortgagee, who has in no way acted on the faith of, or otherwise made himself a party to, the agreement of the mortgagor's grantee to pay the mortgage; holding, on the one hand, that such a mortgagee has no greater right than the mortgagor has against the grantee, and therefore cannot object to the striking out by a court of equity, or to the release by the mortgagor, of such an agreement when inserted in the deed by mistake; Elliott v. Sackett, 108 U. S. 132; Drury v. Hayden, 111 U. S. 223; and, on the other hand, that such an agreement does not, without the mortgagee's assent, put the grantee and the mortgagor in the relation of principal and surety towards the mortgagee, so that the latter, by giving time to the grantee, will discharge the mortgagor. Shepherd v. May, 115 U. S. 505, 511."

The Court of Appeals rightly held that remedies are determined by the law of the forum; that Wood's liability by reason of his acceptance of Dixon's deed was subject to the limitation prescribed as to simple contracts; and was barred by the application in equity, by analogy, of the bar of the statute at law.

We also concur with the Court of Appeals that the bill was effectually dismissed as against the estate of Wood on the 5th of January, 1885. That court held that there could be no doubt that it was the intention of plaintiff by the order of that date to dismiss the bill as to the representatives of Wood's estate, and that it was supposed at the time to have been

Opinion of the Court.

effectually done; that this dismissal was a concession to the demand of Wood that plaintiff should elect as between his action at law then pending against the representatives and the bill in equity; that it could not be urged that the defendant or his representative might object to the dismissal; and that after a voluntary dismissal of the bill by plaintiff he would not be allowed to reinstate it unless it was shown that there was surprise or mistake. It was further held that though the order of dismissal referred alone to Mrs. Wood, she was the only active representative of the estate, and that the fair construction of the order of dismissal would not permit of the contention that the bill was still intentionally retained as against the co-executor, the son; and that indeed, being dismissed voluntarily as against the active representative, it was left fatally defective, even though technically still pending against the son.

The proceedings show that Mrs. Wood was regarded as the sole representative, she only having administered; and the attempts by filing a replication July 1, 1890, without leave of court, to the answer filed by Wood, who had then been dead nearly eight years, and by filing a paper signifying the withdrawal of the direction to dismiss the bill, July 31, 1890, also without leave of court, were unavailing in the premises.

But it is insisted that, conceding the remedy as to Wood was barred, it does not follow that Bryan was entitled to avail himself of that bar, since the right was not extinguished; that Bryan joined in the execution of the deed of Wood, and thereby expressly agreed to pay the balance due on the mortgage; that this was an absolute promise to pay and not merely a contract of indemnity; and that it could be proceeded on as a specialty irrespective of whether the remedy on Wood's contract with Dixon was barred in the District or not.

It is not denied that the enforcement of the contract was open to all defences existing between Wood and Bryan. Episcopal City Mission v. Brown, 158 U. S. 222. Christmas had not been deprived by either of them of any security he ever had; there was no mutual agreement between him and them; and he had in no way acted on the faith of the agreement between them in such a way as to bind either of them by estoppel.

Opinion of the Court.

The sixth section of chapter 23 of the act of 1715 of the State of Maryland, and which is in force in this District, is as follows: "No bill, bond, judgment, recognizance, statute merchant, or of the staple, or other specialty whatsoever, except such as shall be taken in the name or for the use of our sovereign lord the king, his heirs and successors, shall be good and pleadable, or admitted in evidence against any person or persons of this province, after the principal debtor and creditor have been both dead twelve years, or the debt or thing in action above twelve years' standing; saving to all persons that shall be under the aforementioned impediments of infancy, coverture, insanity of mind, imprisonment, or being beyond the sea, the full benefit of all such bills, bonds, judgments, recognizances, statutes merchant, or of the staple, or other specialties, for the space of five years after such impediment removed, anything in this act before mentioned to the contrary notwithstanding." 1 Kilty's Laws of Maryland.

This section was peculiar to the State of Maryland, and in effect went to the cause of action. In some aspects it has often received the consideration of the courts of that State. Some of the decisions are referred to by Chief Justice Alvey in Mann v. McDonald, 22 Wash. Law Rep. 98, and it is there said: "Unlike the construction that has been placed upon the terms of the statute employed in the second section, in regard to simple contract debts, the construction uniformly placed on the terms employed in the sixth section in regard to judg ments, recognizances and specialties of various kinds, owing to the peculiar force and prohibitory nature of the language employed in this latter section, has been different, and unyielding to circumstances that would remove the bar of the statute as applied to simple contract debts; hence it has been uniformly held that a mere acknowledgment of the debt due on judgment, or even an express promise to pay the same, will not arrest the running of the statute, or remove the bar, as against the judgment or specialty mentioned in the act; though such judgment or specialty may form the basis or inducement to a new express promise to pay, upon which an action may be maintained. Lamar v. Munro, 10 G. & J. 50;

Opinion of the Court.

Young v. Mackall, 4 Maryland, 367. And so the payment of interest, or even part of the principal of the judgment debt will not have the effect of avoiding the operation of the statute as applied to proceedings on the judgment to revive, or to recover on the judgment by action of debt. In the case of Carroll v. Waring, 3 G. & J. 491, it was held that the payment of interest upon a bond was no avoidance of the bar of the act of limitations of 1715, c. 23; nor would even an express acknowledgment of the debt revive the remedy upon a bond barred by that act." And see Digges v. Eliason, 4 Cranch C. C. 619; Thompson v. Beveridge, 3 Mackey, 170; Galt v. Todd, 23 Wash. Law Rep. 98.

The saving clause of the section relates to creditors only, and by section 466 of the Revised Statutes of the District all exceptions in favor of parties beyond the District were repealed. However, as this sixth section of the act of 1715 was not pleaded we need not consider whether its benefits are denied to non-resident debtors by the fourth and fifth sections relating to "persons absenting the province, or wandering from county to county," or by the act of November, 1765, c. 12, as to persons who "may be absent out of this province, at the time when the cause of action hath arisen or accrued," Kilty's Laws; Hysinger v. Baltzell, 3 G. & J. 158; Maurice v. Worden, 52 Maryland, 283; or other statutory provision.

But it is well to observe that this covenant was entered into in the District between residents thereof, and, although its performance was required elsewhere, the liability for non-performance was governed by the law of the obligee's domicil, operating to bar the obligation, unless suspended by the absence of the obligor.

The general rule in respect of limitations must also be borne in mind, that if a plaintiff mistakes his remedy, in the absence of any statutory provision saving his rights, or where from any cause a plaintiff becomes nonsuit or the action abates or is dismissed, and, during the pendency of the action, the limitation runs, the remedy is barred. Alexander v. Pendleton, 8 Cranch, 462, 470; Young v. Mackall, 4 Maryland, 367; Wood on Limitations, § 293, and cases cited.