ATTACHMENTS. 285

Property in custodia legis.

While property in the custody of the law cannot be attached, a second attachment,
if directed to the same officer, may be levied on the same property to effect any
surplus not exhausted by the first attachment. Ginsberg v. Pohl, 35 Md. 507.

Money paid into court.

Money paid into court under an order to that effect cannot be attached. Mattingly
v. Grimes, 48 Md. 105.

And this is true even after an audit ascertaining just what is due the debtor, and
after the clerk has been directed to pay it out accordingly. Dale v. Brumley, 98
Md. 468.

Funds in the hands of public officers.

Funds in the hands of a public officer cannot be attached. Wilson v. Ridgely, 46
Md. 247 (county treasurer); Dale v. Brumley, 98 Md. 471 (court clerk).

Funds in, the hands of an officer of a municipal corporation are not liable to
attachment. Baltimore v. Root, 8 Md. 100. And see Phillips v. Baltimore, 110 Md.
440.

But if the incumbent's term of office has expired, an attachment will lie. Robert-
son v. Beall, 10 Md. 129.

Prior appropriation by garnishee.

Where money is deposited by A. with B. for use of C., a creditor of A. may
attach it unless there is some kind of privity of contract between B. and C.
Nicholson v. Crook, 56 Md. 55.

An order by the defendant on the garnishee directing him to pay money in his
hands to a third party, defeats an attachment against the defendant, if prior to
the attachment being laid in his hands the garnishee has accepted the order or
agreed to such appropriation of the fund. Wilson v. Carson, 12 Md. 54.

The liability of a garnishee depends on the state of accounts between him and
the defendant. If by a contract antedating the attachment, the garnishee agreed
to and did pay certain debts due by the defendant (consuming all the money in
his hands), the attachment must fail. Troxall v. Applegarth, 24 Md. 163; B. &
O. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 18 Md. 378. And see Parley v. Colver, 113 Md. 385.

A garnishee has a right to appropriate funds in his hands to a debt due him by
the defendant, and hence an attachment against the defendant laid in the gar-
nishee's hands under such circumstances, must fail. Peters v. Cunningham, 10
Md. 558.

And this is true, though the debt due the garnishee by the defendant is not
matured when the attachment is laid, provided it matures before trial. But such
right of set-off does not extend to any matter originating by action of the garnishee
subsequent to the garnishment. F. & M. Bank v. The Franklin Bank, 31 Md. 412.

Money deposited by a parent with a college as security for board, tuition, etc.,
is not subject to attachment by a creditor of the parent; unless a balance is left
on hand after the specific object for which the deposit was made has terminated.
Poe v. St. Mary's College, 4 Gill, 499.

Attachment against co-partnership on debt of individual member.

While the tangible chattels of a co-partnership may be attached by a creditor of
one of the partners, a debt due the firm cannot be so attached. People's Bank v.
Shryock, 48 Md. 434.

The case is different, however, if the attachment is against a surviving partner.
People's Bank v. Shryock, 48 Md. 434; Berry v. Harris, 22 Md. 30.

Generally.

An attachment binds not only all the garnishee has at the time the attachment
is laid, but whatever else he acquires down to trial. Farley v. Colver, 113 Md.
386; Nicholson v. Crook, 56 Md. 57; First National Bank v. Jaggers, 31 Md. 50.
(But see sec. 33.)

Where $2,000 belonging to an insurance company is deposited in bank by an
agent of the company in the company's name, and upon the bank being made
garnishee in an attachment against the agent, the bank declines to pay the insur-
ance company the $2,000, and the agent before trial of the attachment remits