|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HEPBURN'S CASE. 119
every thing he can to put the plaintiff in as good a condition as he
would have been in originally; or if after judgment the outlaw
pays the debt and costs, the court reverses the outlawry upon mo-
tion without any writ of error, (g) These are the special and
general modes of proceeding, according to the English law. And
it is now settled, that a creditor may, in cases falling within the
jurisdiction of the admiralty, proceed to obtain satisfaction from
his debtor resident abroad, by attaching his property in this
country, (h)
The mode of proceeding by attachment to obtain satisfaction
from property found here belonging to a non-resident debtor, was
certainly established in Maryland as early as 1647, if not before, (i)
The acts of Assembly in relation to it have been always considered
as laws regulating process for the more effectual recovery of debts, or
as providing a special auxiliary remedy for the recovery of debts, (j)
An attachment has always been considered, from its very nature,
as intended solely for the benefit of our citizens; before the revo-
lution a person not an inhabitant of the province could not sue out
the process; nor can an alien now have it: (k) though an inhabi-
tant of this or any other state or territory of the Union may sue it
out. (t) It is intended to enforce the payment of debts only; it
will therefore lie on a judgment, bond, note, account, or the like;
but not on a covenant, bond with collateral condition, for trespass,
&e. (m) It may be levied on any lands and tenements, goods and
chattels, rights and credits of the defendant, that can be found in
or out of the hands of others, or in the plaintiff's own hands; or
it may be levied on an equitable interest in real estate; (n) on a
vested interest in any property; on a debt due by judgment; (o)
on a debt before it is due; or on any thing that may be taken in
execution, (p) And in general, the garnishee may plead all things
in defence that the defendant might have pleaded, (g)
One of the most accomplished of the lawyers of Maryland, be-
(g) Rex v. Wilkes, 4 Burr, 2549; Morley v. Strombom, 3 Bos. and Pul. 254;
Tidd Prac. 109, 135; Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 23; Edgell v. Haywood, 3 Atk. 356.—
(h) Manro u. Almeida, 10 Wheat. 473.—(i) Campbell v, Morris, 3 H. & McH.
555.—(j) Campbell v. Morris, 3 H, & McH. 555; Davidson v. Beatty, 8 H. & McH.
616; Barney 0. Patterson, 6 H. & J. 201.—(k) Burk v. M'Clain, 1 H. & McH. 236;
Yerby v. Lackland, 6 H. & J. 453.—(J) 1825, ch. 114.—(m) The State v. Beall, 3
H. & McH. 347.—(n) Campbell v. Morris, a H. & McH. 537.—(o) Or now by de-
cree, 1831, ch. 321.—(p) Wells v. Gheselin, 1 H. & McH. 91; 1832, ch. 807.—(q)
Masters ». Lewis, 1 Ld. Raym. 56; M'Daniel v. Hughes, 3 East. 307; Chase v.
Manhardt, 1 Bland, 344,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
