ART. 9] ON ORIGINAL PROCESS FOR FRAUD. 215

But the pendency of an attachment may be pleaded in abatement. If the
garnishee compromise with the plaintiff for a sum less than the debt due by
him (the garnishee) to the defendant, the compromise is valid as to the
plaintiff, but it does not prevent the defendant from recovering the balance
of his debt from the garnishee. Brown v. Somerville. 8 Md. 444. See also,
Baldwin v. Wright, 3 Gill, 241.

Attachments on Original Process for Fraud.

1904, art. 9, sec. 36. 1888, art. 9, sec. 35. 1864, ch. 306, sec. 1. 1892, ch. 510.
36. Every person and body corporate that has the right to become
a plaintiff in any action or proceeding, before any judicial tribunal in
this State, shall have the right to proceed by attachment in the follow-
ing cases, upon the conditions and in the manner herein provided.
Before any such writ of attachment shall be issued, the plaintiff or some
person in his behalf shall make an affidavit before the clerk of the
court from which said attachment shall issue, or before some officer
authorized by the laws of the State of Maryland to take affidavits as
enumerated in section 5 of this article, stating that the defendant or
defendants, named in the writ of attachment, is or are bona fide indebted
to the plaintiff or plaintiffs in the sum of ———— dollars, over and
above all discounts; and that the plaintiff knows or has good reason to
believe, either (first) that the debtor is about to abscond from this
State, or (second) that the defendant has assigned, disposed of or con-
cealed, or is about to assign, dispose of or conceal his property or some
portion thereof, with intent to defraud his creditors, or (third) that the
defendant fraudulently contracted the debt or incurred the obligation
respecting which the action is brought, or (fourth) that the defendant
has removed or is about to remove his property, or some portion thereof,
out of the State with intent to defraud his creditors.

The affidavit.

A plaintiff need not confine himself to one of the disjunctive allegations,
but may include them all. Howard v. Oppenheimer. 25 Md. 362.

As the statute requires the affidavit to state that "the plaintiff knows." etc.,
it will not do for someone making oath in behalf of the plaintiff to swear
that "he (the affiant) knows," etc. Dean v. Oppenheimer. 25 Md. 377. Rut
see Stewart v. Katz, 30 Md. 334.

A variance between the proof and the allegations of the affidavit, is fatal.
Dumay v. Sanchez, 71 Md. 508.

And see notes to sec. 4.

What amounts to fraud.

A deed of trust condemned by the law as fraudulent, is a foundation for
attachment under this section—a fraudulent intent or purpose need not be
shown aliunde the deed. Whedbee r. Stewart, 40 Md. 423. See also. Main
r. Lynch, 54 Md. 670.

The fact that in a deed for the benefit of his creditors, the grantor reserves
property exempted by law from execution, does not make the deed fraudulent
so as to entitle creditors to attach. Muhr v. Pinover. 67 Md. 480.

A transfer by one partner to the other of all his interest in the firm,
held under the proof to be fraudulent, entitling firm creditors to attach.
Collier v. Hanna, 71 Md. 253; Franklin, etc.. Co. v. Henderson, 86 Md. 452.

For a failure of proof that the defendant has assigned, etc., his property
with intent to defraud his creditors, and that the debt was fraudulently con-
tracted, see Johnson v. Stockham. 89 Md. 358; Strauss v. Rose, 59 Md. 525;
Palmer r Hughes, 84 Md. 652; Pitts v. Smelser, 87 Md. 493.