ART. 9] CLAIMANTS OF PROPERTY. 221

recover damages in such suit for the wrong and injury done to him, her
or it by reason of such seizure and detention of his, her or its property.

The proper way to test the bona fides of an assignment of a debt where the
debt has been attached in the creditor's hands, is for the assignee to inter-
vene as claimant. Fetterhoff v. Sheridan, 94 Md. 452.

A claimant of rights, credits or moneys who proceeds under the practice
existing prior to this section, has the same right to intervene that a claimant
of specific goods has. This section does not repeal any existing law, nor
prevent a claimant from proceeding under the former practice. Kean v.
Doerner, 62 Md. 477.

Under this section, the claimant may recover damages growing out of the
taking of his property under the attachment, and it is not necessary that the
petition claim damages. Turner v. Lytle, 59 Md. 203.

A party claiming to own the attached property may or may not intervene
as claimant in the attachment case, as he pleases. Kilpatrick v. O'Connell.
62 Md. 411; Corner v. Mclntosh, 48 Md. 390: Richardson v. Hall, 21 Md. 405.

But the claimant loses his right of action against the sheriff for selling his
property, if he knows of the attachment and does not intervene. Trieber v.
Blocher, 10 Md. 14; Fetterhoff v. Sheridan, 94 Md. 452.

A claimant may intervene in the attachment case notwithstanding an order
of court directing the goods to be sold and the proceeds held subject to the
decision of the case, though the proceeds have been paid over to the plaintiff
upon his giving bond, and though the claimant may be prosecuting another
suit in the same court for the same cause. Hall v. Richardson. 16 Md. 396.
See also, Albert v. Freas, 103 Md. 583.

As to the practice prior to this section, and which still may be resorted to.
see. in addition, Howard v. Oppenheimer, 25 Md. 365: White v. Solomonskv.
30 Md. 585; Clark v. Meixsell, 29 Md. 228; Carson v. White, 6 Gill, 27.

The landlord's lien upon crops reserved as rent Is not divested by process
of law against the tenant—art. 53, sec. 22.

As to claimants of property taken upon execution by a justice of the
peace, see art. 52, sections 73 and 74.

1904, art. 9, sec. 48. 1888, art. 9, sec. 46. 1876. ch. 285. 1888, ch. 507. 1900. ch. 697

1902. ch. 324.

48. The property attached shall be discharged from the levy and
surrendered to such claimant upon the filing of a bond by or on behalf
of such claimant in a penalty equal to double the value of the property
as ascertained by an appraisement thereof to be made by the sheriff at
the time of the levy, to be approved of by the clerk and conditioned for
satisfying all costs and such damages not exceeding the real value of
the property attached as the. plaintiff shall recover in case said claimant
shall fail to establish his claim.

In order to avail himself of this section, a claimant must proceed under
section 47. Kean v. Doerner, 62 Md. 478.

But a claimant who does not desire immediate possession of the property,
need not give bond in order to proceed under section 47. Albert v. Freas.
103 Md. 590.

There must be an appraisement, but the fact that the claimant's bond is in
a sum less than that required by this section does not defeat the claimant's
case, nor prevent his recovering damages. Turner v. Lytle, 59 Md. 205.
And see notes to sec. 39.

Ibid. sec. 49. 1888, art. 9. sec. 47. 1876, ch. 285. 1888, ch. 507.

49. In case the plaintiff in such attachment is not satisfied with the
sufficiency of the surety or sureties in the bond taken under the pre-
ceding section, he may at any time before judgment apply to the judge
of the court in which the said bond is filed for an order requiring the