Section 5 of article 45 authorizes married women to sue for the recovery, security or protection of their property, and if section 20 of that article be not applicable, it would seem that the plaintiff could sue her husband as well as any other person for the protection of her property under section 5 of the article. Hill v. Boland, 125 Md. 116; Taylor v. Welslager, 90 Md. 409; 1 Poe, Pl. Pr., secs. 344-347; Lyell v. Walbach, 113 Md. 578. It will be seen that a complete change was made and effected in the law as to the rights of married women in this State by chapter 457 of the acts of 1898, and by chapter 633 of the acts of 1900, and now embraced as sections 5 and 20 of article 45, entitled "Husband and Wife," Bagby's Code, vol. 1, page 1163.

In Windwart v. Allen, 13 Md. 196, it was said: "Intendments will be made in support of the acts of ministerial officers, where they appear by the return of process to have discharged their duty, and the onus probandi rests on the party impeaching such acts." See also Abell v. Simon, 49 Md. 318; Taylor v. Welslager, 90 Md. 409. Others cases might be cited, but it would be useless to do so, as there can be no doubt about the general rule. The appellants have not only failed to overcome the return of the sheriff, but the evidence in the record thoroughly establishes the correctness of it.