lxxxviii PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY

said writ, he was to give notice to all persons in whose hands or possession he at-
tached such goods that they appear before the justices of Prince Georges County
Court to be held at Charles Town on a specified date to show cause, if any, why
the goods so attached should not be condemned and execution had and made and
that he have then and there the said writ and make return thereof.18

If the sheriff had attached goods and chattels belonging to defendant in the
hands of third parties (or in plaintiff's possession), the sheriff returned the writ
endorsed in the manner indicated by the following example:

Attached in die hands of John Dunkin two Cowes and Calves Appraised to the Sume
of Sixteen hundred pounds of tobaccoe Appraised by William Mills and John Dunkin.I9

Some bore an endorsement that the sheriff had made known to the garnishee
or garnishees that he or they be in court on the return day to show cause, as recited
in the writ. In other cases this was stated orally in court by the sheriff.

In a few cases the sheriff returned the writ endorsed nulla bona, indicating that
he had found no goods or chattels of defendant to attach. 20 Such return as a practi-
cal matter ended the action unless at a later date it was discovered that goods and
chattels existed which the sheriff had failed to attach or unless another capias were
issued and personal service was made upon defendant.

Frequently the plaintiff's attorney appeared but the garnishee and the defend-
ant did not. In the early cases it does not appear from the entry that defendant
was expected to appear; later entries indicate that defendant was called. In such
case plaintiff's attorney prayed that the goods attached, or a sufficient portion
thereof, be condemned for the use of the plaintiff and that execution thereof be
had and made. The court thereupon granted this request.

In many of the early attachments plaintiff and one security undertook, jointly
and severally, to make restitution to defendant of the value of the goods and
chattels condemned if defendant should at any time within a year and a day appear
to the original action and show that plaintiff's demand had been satisfied or other-
wise discount or bar plaintiff of the same or any part thereof. However, many
entries, especially the later ones, carry no references to this security being put up;
it is not apparent whether this was due to clerical sloth or a change in the practice
of the court.

However, in some cases garnishees appeared on the return of the writ and
opposed the attachment on the ground that the tobacco or any part thereof at-
tached by the sheriff was not owed to defendant as alleged by plaintiff. Thereupon
the garnishee made oath that he did not then or at the time of the attachment owe
defendant the sum of tobacco attached in his hands or any part thereof, in effect
waged his law, although this term is not used in the Liber. The court might then
adjudge that plaintiff take nothing by his writ of attachment. In some cases there
were two procedural steps; the garnishee appeared and imparled to the next court
and at such court made known his objection to the attachment. In other cases a
garnishee appeared on the return of the writ but was unsuccessful in preventing
condemnation.

It should be noted that some Liber entries in actions of trespass on the case
commence with a statement that the defendant "was atteched to answer unto" the
plaintiff "of a plea of trespass upon the Case etc." Such language derives from

18. Infra 32-33,251, 259,328-30, 386-87,414,444-45,592.

19. Infra 36.

20. Infra 160, 359, 374, 390.