208 ATTACHMENTS [ART. 9

1904, art. 9, sec 18. 1888, art. 9, sec. 18. 1860. art. 10, sec. 19. 1832, ch. 307, sec. 1.

18. An attachment may be laid on any interest which the defend-
ant has or may be entitled to in the stock of any corporation, or in the
debt of any corporation, transferable upon the books of such corpora-
tion; and it shall be the duty of the sheriff or other officer, in laying said
attachment, to comply with the requirements contained' in article 23,
title "Corporations," of this code, in relation thereto.

Attachment of corporate stock only exists by statute, and only applies to
stock of corporations existing in this State, and not to stock of those outside
of the State. Morton v. Grafflin, 68 Md. 559.

As to the attachment of corporate stock, see art. 23. sections 50, 51, 68 to
71, and 92.

Ibid. sec. 19. 1888, art. 9, sec. 19. 1860, art. 10. sec. 20. 1832, ch. 280, sec. 5.
1834. ch. 79, sec. 2. 1854, ch. 153, sec. 4.

19. No attachment shall be dissolved unless every defendant
appears to the action, and unless a bond be given by or on behalf of
the defendant or defendants, in a sum of money equal to the value of
the property attached, with security to be approved by the court, or the
judge thereof, if in recess, to satisfy any judgment that shall be recov-
ered in such case against the defendants.

Effect of bankruptcy proceedings upon bond.

Where the attachment is dissolved by giving bond, and more than four
months after the issue of the attachment the defendant in the attachment
goes into bankruptcy and later is discharged, a qualified Judgment in the
short note case may nevertheless be entered against the defendant, so as to
bind the bond. Kendrick v. Warren, 110 Md. 72.

But no judgment can be entered and the bond is not liable where the
attachment is issued within four months prior to the bankruptcy proceed-
ings. Crook-Horner Co. v. Gilpin, 112 Md. 1.

Generally.

The bond takes the place of the attachment, and the short note case
remains to be tried just as before. Handle v. Mellen. 67 Md. 188.

The defendant can dissolve the attachment only during the term to which
the attachment is returned. Walters v. Monroe. 17 Md. 505.

The defendant,must appear before he can dissolve. If a bond is given and
the attachment dissolved without the defendant's appearance, and it appears
that the court rendering Judgment had no jurisdiction, the bond is not liable.
The giving of the bond by third parties does not amount to an appearance by
the defendant. Clark v. Bryan, 16 Md. 178.

The amendment of the declaration or of the voucher in an attachment suit,
does not discharge the surety on a bond to dissolve the attachment, unless
such amendment makes a new cause of action or imposes upon the surety a
greater liability than that assumed when the bond was delivered. Amend-
ment held not to discharge the surety. Warren v. Kendrick. 113 Md. 605.

And see notes to sec. 39.

Ibid. sec. 20. 1888. art. 9. sec. 20. 1860, art. 10, sec. 21.
1852, ch. 155, sec. 1.

20. Any absent defendant, or any one in his behalf, may file a peti-
tion to the judge of a court from which an attachment has issued, before
the return day of such attachment, praying that the said writ be
quashed and set aside; and thereupon the judge shall order the sheriff
to return said writ and the proceedings thereunder immediately before
him; and upon such return and after such notice as he shall prescribe'