320 CHASE v. MANHARDT.—1 BLAND.

been given as they should have been, when the papers were ten-
dered; and as it appears they would have been, but for the attach-
ment; that is to say, from that day until the 13th of October, 1817,
when the judgment was rendered in the attachment case.

It thus appears sufficiently evident, that confining our consider-
ation to the contract alone, Chase must be charged with interest.
But it is said, that the attachment restrained him from paying
the debt; and therefore, he cannot be burtheued with interest
during the continuance of that restriction. The Legislature have
declared, that a debt may be attached in the hands of a debtor before
it is due. 1795, ch. 56, s. 6. And, consequently, in such cases, the
plaintiff may obtain judgment before the debt becomes due with a
stay of execution. Com. Dig. tit. Attachment, G. But they have
said nothing about interest on any debt that may be attached.
Whether the laying of an attachment of itself suspends the claim
of interest upon the debt attached, is the question next to be in-
vestigated and determined.

All the other States of our Union have adopted a form of judi-
cial procedure having the same object as the attachment of Mary-
land; and hence we may with as much, perhaps more, propriety
deduce illustrations and principles from their adjudications upon
this subject than from those of England. In every instance, how-
ever, it is conceived that such adjudications, whether American or
English, must be received with caution; because of the dissimi-
larity of the judicial forms, and the differences in many particulars
of the code upon which they are predicated.

A decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has been
much relied on, in which it is laid down as a general rule, in that
State, that a garnishee is not liable for interest while he is re-
strained from the payment of his debt by the legal operation of a
foreign attachment. Fitzgerald v. Caldwell, 2 Dall 215. This
same tribunal has furnished us with an exposition of the reason of
this rule. Where the creditor, (it is said,) cannot enforce pay-
ment, nor the debtor pay consistently with the law, or without
disobeying its positive and unqualified injunctions, as by going
into an enemy's country to make payment, the debt shall not
carry interest; because interest is paid for the use or forbearance
*of money. Therefore, where a person is prevented by
343 law, as in that instance, during the Revolutionary War,
from paying the principal, he shall not be compelled to pay inte-
rest during the continuance of the prohibition. And upon this
analogy and these reasons, it is said, that the garnishee shall not
be compelled to pay interest pending the attachment; Hoare v.
Alien, 2 Dall. 102; unless he has been guilty of fraud or collusion,
or has himself occasioned some unreasonable delay; which is in no
case to be presumed, but must be proved. Fitzgerald v. Caldwell,
2 Dall. 215.