ATTACHMENTS. 281

While the rule day act of Baltimore city has no application to or effect upon
proceedings by attachment, the requirements with regard to the cause of action
to be filed, are the same. Steuart v. Chappell, 98 Md. 530; Thillman v. Shadrick,
69 Md. 528; State v. Steibel, 31 Md. 37.

Cause of action held sufficient.

The evidence of debt will be sufficient if it shows a prima jade indebtedness; a
creditor need not produce all his proofs—it is sufficient if the cause of action shows
the specific, liquidated and ascertained debt sued for. Account and contract held
sufficient. Short note in proper form. Hedrick v. Markham, 132 Md. 162.

Claim of a creditor of an insolvent corporation against stockholder to enforce
his statutory liability. Norris v. Wrenschall, 34 Md. 492.

Claim under policy of insurance. Knickerbocker v. Hoske, 32 Md. 322 (life in-
surance) ; Orient, etc., Co. v. Andrews, 66 Md. 371 (marine insurance).

Claim for damages for breach of a contract to sell the plaintiff a promissory
note for less than its face value. Dirickson v. Showell, 79 Md. 49.

Suit on the transcript of the record of a foreign judgment. Cockey v. Milne,
16 Md. 205; Neptune, etc., Co. v. Montell, 8 Gill, 228.

Claim on a bond conditioned for the payment of money which does not state
the exact amount intended to be secured, but which contains the elements neces-
sary to ascertain the amount due thereon. Williams v. Jones, 38 Md. 565; State v.
Steibel, 31 Md. 37. See also Wilson v. Wilson, 8 Gill, 195.

Cause of action held insufficient.

Claim on. a bond with collateral conditions. State v. Beall, 3 H. & McH. 347;
State v. Steibel, 31 Md. 37; Keen v. Whittington, 40 Md. 489.

Claim arising put of a breach of a covenant in a complicated agreement em-
bracing many things to be done. Hough v. Kugler, 36 Md. 194.

Claim by a lawyer for professional services, in the absence of an agreement as to
the amount to be paid. Steuart v. Chappell, 98 Md. 532. And see Blick v. Mer-
cantile Trust Co., 113 Md. 489.

See notes to sec. 44.

Contents of Toucher.

The creditor in filing his cause of action need not produce his testimony qua,
testimony. DeBebian v. Gola, 64 Md. 265; White v. Solomonsky, 30 Md. 589; Lee
v. Tinges, 7 Md. 215; Dawson v. Brown, 12 G. & J. 53.

An account " To professional service as per agreement $200," is insufficient.
Hoffman v. Read, 57 Md. 374.

But the voucher need not set out in detail the services rendered, nor the sum
claimed in each particular case. Steuart v. Chappell, 98 Md. 530.

An account simply setting out the names, date, amount and specifying " Cash,"
is insufficient. Burk v. Tinsley, 80 Md. 98.

But an account " To cash loaned at sundry times on account," is sufficient—the
dates and items need not be given, as in case of goods sold. Cox v. Waters, 34 Md.
461; Summers v. Oberndorf, 73 Md. 316.

The quantity of each article need not be stated in the account, but the garnishee
may demand a bill of particulars. Bartlett v. Wilbur, 53 Md. 501.

An account made out in the mode usually adopted by merchants engaged in
extensive business is held sufficient. Stewart v. Katz, 30 Md. 346.

But the voucher is insufficient if it merely sets out a balance due. Thillman v.
Shadrick, 69 Md. 528.

Variance.

A variance between the cause of action and the short-note (the former being
dated June 1, 1864, and the latter June 1, 1867) is fatal. Browning v. Pasquay, 35
Md. 295.

As to variance, see also Blair v. Winston, 84 Md. 356; Hoffman v. Read, 57
Md. 374; Schroeder v. Turner, 68 Md. 506; Mears v. Adreon, 31 Md. 236.

Generally.

The original vouchers may be withdrawn by order of court upon leaving certified
copies. Johnson v. Stockham, 89 Md. 380; Franklin Bank v. Matthews, 69 Md. 111.
The voucher may be in a foreign language. DeBebian v. Gola, 64 Md. 264.