ART. 9] NON-RESIDENT AND ABSCONDING DEBTORS. 197

A resident may attach property located in Maryland of a non-resident alien
enemy. Hepburn's Case, 3 Bl. 120.

An Act of Congress exempting a National Bank or its property from
attachment before final judgment, is valid. Chesapeake Bank v. First
National Bank, 40 Md. 269.

1904, art 9, sec. 3. 1888, art. 9. sec. 3. 1860, art. 10, sec. 3. 1795, ch. 56, sec. 1.

1854, ch. 153, sec. 3.

3. Every person who shall actually run away, abscond or fly from
justice, or secretly remove himself from his place of abode, with inten-
tion to evade the payment of his just debts, or to injure or defraud his
creditors, shall be considered as having absconded; and an averment in
the oath of the plaintiff against a person as having absconded shall,
without other words, be a sufficient averment of any such conduct.

Who is an "absconder"? Risewick v. Davls. 19 Md. 94; Field v. Adreon.
7 Md. 213; Stauffer v. Niple. 40 Md. 477; McKim v. Odom, 3 Bl. 428. And
see Marbury v. Brooks. 7 Wheat. 556.

Ibid, sec. 4. 1888. art. 9, sec. 4. 1860, art. 10, sec. 4. 1795, ch. 56, sec. 1.

4. No attachment shall issue (except as hereinafter mentioned),
unless there be an affidavit that the debtor is bona fide indebted to the
creditor in the sum of———, over and above all discounts; and at the
time of making the affidavit, the creditor shall produce the bond, account
or other evidences of debt, by which the said debtor is so indebted; and
shall also make affidavit that he knows, or is credibly informed and
verily believes, that the said debtor is not a citizen of this State, and
that he doth not reside therein; or if the said debtor resides in this
State, that he doth know, or is credibly informed and verily believes,
that the said debtor hath absconded.

THE AFFIDAVIT.

Typographical or inadvertent errors.

A typographical error in the name of the debtor does not vitiate the
affidavit. Foran v. Johnson. 58 Md. 144.

The omission of the word "Dollars" after the figures showing the amount
due in the affidavit Is not fatal. DeBebian v. Gola. 64 Md. 264.

Where the affidavit is actually mnde before the clerk, who inadvertently
fails to sign the jurat, but after service of the writ does sign it, the affidavit
is sufficient. Farrow v. Hayes. 51 Md. 506

Generally.

The affidavit being made several months prior to the issue of the attacn-
ment does not invalidate the procedure. Hadden v. Linville. 86 Md. 234.

The plaintiff may have judgment of condemnation for a less sum than he
claims in his affidavit. Jean v. Spurrier. 35 Md. 116: White v. Solomonsky,
30 Md. 580; Lee v. Tinges. 7 Md. 215; Boarman v. Patterson, 1 Gill, 372;
Dawson v. Brown. 12 G. & J. 60.

When the plaintiff both swears and affirms, the affidavit is not fatally
defective. Matthews v. Dare, 20 Md. 265.

The affidavits in the following cases were held to substantially comply with
the statute: Gunby v. Porter. 80 Md. 402; Franklin v. Claflin. 49 Md. 37;
Boarmau v. Patterson. 1 Gill. 380.