CHASE v. MANHAEDT.—1 BLAND. 325

I am, therefore, satisfied as well by reason and analogy, as by
direct authority, that an attachment has not the effect and opera-
tion of suspending any claim for interest, which exists indepen-
dently of that judicial proceeding; and, consequently, that in this
case Chase is properly chargeable with interest by virtue of his
contract.

It has been urged, that Mauhardt obtained a judgment against
Bryden for more than he was entitled to. The Court has not been
* furnished with sufficient data to test the correctness of
that judgment, even if it were now open to investigation. 348
But it is stated in Manhardt's answer, and was not denied by
Bryden. who was fillip and actively represented, when the judg-
ment of condemnation was obtained in the attachment case; nor
is it now denied by Bryden*s representative, who is a party to this
suit, that Manhardt's judgment against Bryden amounted at that
time to 89,326.62. This matter must therefore be now considered
as finally and conclusively settled. Manhardt's judgment against
Bryden cannot now be questioned in any way; particularly by this
complainant as garishee; and in whose present bill there is no
allegation which involves its validity and correctness. I there-
fore lay aside every thing that has been said upon that subject.

There can be no doubt, that this Court may set aside a verdict
that has been obtained by surprise or fraud, and grant a new trial.
But, has there been any surprise or fraud in this case .' By the
docket it appears, that there was an appearance entered for the
garnishee; and, that two attorneys were noted in the usual manner
as appearing in the defensive. It Is certain, that one of them,
John Purviance. had his name thus entered for the purpose of
protecting the interests of Brvdeu. the defendant, and of Kyd,
who were his clients. It is also certain, that he put in the pleas
of nul tiel record, in defence of Bryden. and nulla bona in behalf
of the complainant Chase; and, that he had full, free and frequent
conversations with Chase, the complainant, respecting the attach-
ment while it was depending: who never once, in all that time,
told him, that he, Chase, had any just grounds of defence for him-
self against the claim founded on his contract with Bryden. It is
not distinctly shown for whom Luther Martin, the other attorney,
appeared. But it is clear, that they were both willing, and either
of them might have made for Chase any defence he might have
instructed them to make. Indeed it appears, that interrogatories
were propounded to him, as garnishee, which he answered;—and,
consequently, that he not only had an opportunity to defend his
interests in that cause, but was actually invited to spread his de-
fence upon the record. Those interrogatories and answers are lost.
The exceptions to the answers are, however, here; and among
other things they say, that Chase did not file the original papers;
and, that it did not appear with sufficient certainty, whether the