ART. 9] ON ORIGINAL PROCESS FOE FRAUD. 217

defendant or defendants, or to any other persons interested in the pro-
ceedings, and all damages which the defendant or defendants, or any
other persons interested in the proceedings, shall suffer because of the
wrongful suing out of said attachment, which bond shall be filed in the
office of the clerk issuing such attachment; the condition of said bond
shall be substantially in the following form: The condition of this
obligation is such, that whereas the above bounden ———— hath on the
day of the date hereof, ordered an attachment out of (naming the court
from which said attachment shall issue) at the suit of ———— vs.
————, for the sum of ————, and the same being about to be sued
out of said court, returnable on the ———— day of ———— next; now
if the said ———— shall prosecute his suit with effect, or in the case of
failure thereof shall well and truly pay and satisfy the said ————
and any other person interested in the proceedings all such costs of said
suit, and all such damages as he or they shall or may suffer or incur
by reason of the wrongful suing out of such attachment, then the above
obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Every
attachment hereafter issued without a bond and affidavit taken as afore-
said is hereby declared illegal and void and shall be dismissed.

The bondsmen are not released because the bond, through error, is payable

to the defendant instead of to the state. McLuckie v. Williams, 68 Md. 263.

But see Wanamaker v. Bowes. 36 Md. 42.

The sufficiency of the sureties is left to the clerk. Stewart v. Katz, 30 Md.

344; Gable v. Brooks, 48 Md. 108.

Where the principal and two sureties sign the bond, the fact that the

fourth signature to the bond is unauthorized, does not defeat the liability of

the remaining obligors. Gable v. Brooks. 48 Md. 113.

If the principal is not bound, neither are the sureties; and a party can

not be both principal and surety. Wanamaker v. Bowes, 36 Md. 56.

That the bond was approved must appear from the proceedings. If it is

marked "Accepted," though this is not signed by the clerk, such endorsement,

coupled with the recital in the writ, is sufficient. Howard v. Oppenheimer,

25 Md. 363.

Where a bond is signed by "H. R. Agent." thus purporting to bind A. as

principal in the bond but not doing so because unauthorized, "H. R." is him-
self bound as principal, and the bond Is valid as to the sureties. Stewart v.

Katz, 30 Md. 346.

The rule of court prohibiting attorneys from becoming sureties has no

application to bonds under this section. Lewis v. Higgins, 52 Md. 618.
And see notes to sec. 19.

1904, art. 9, sec. 40. 1888, art. 9, sec. 39. 1864, ch. 306. sec. 5.
40. In all cases where two or more persons are jointly indebted,
either as partners or otherwise, and an affidavit shall be filed as herein-
before provided, so as to make one or more of such joint debtors amena-
able to the process of attachment, then the writ of attachment shall issue
against the lands and tenements, goods, chattels and credits of such as
are so brought within the provisions of this law; but the writ of sum-
mons shall issue against all the joint defendants, as in other actions
against joint defendants.

If one of two Joint (partnership) debtors Is a resident of Baltimore city.
the firm may be proceeded against In Baltimore city by an attachment on
original process. But the attachment will be quashed unless actual or con-
structive fraud was committed Jointly. Collier v. Hanna, 71 Md. 253.