ATTACHMENTS. 291

Attachment of corporate stock only exists by statute, and only applies to stock
of corporations existing in this state, and not to stock of those outside of the state.
Morton v. Grafflin, 68 Md. 559.

As to the attachment of corporate stock, see art. 23, secs. 63, 64, 80, et seq., and 118.

See notes to art. 23, sec. 80.

An. Code, sec. 19. 1904, sec. 19. 1888, sec. 19. 1832, ch. 280, 'sec. 5. 1834, ch. 79, sec. 2.
1854, ch. 153, sec. 4. 1920, ch. 483, sec. 19.

19. No attachment shall be dissolved unless every defendant appears
to the action, and unless a bond be given by or on behalf of the defendant or
defendants, in a sum equal to the value of the property attached, with
security to be approved by the Court, or the Clerk thereof, if in recess, to
satisfy any judgment that shall be recovered in such case against the de-
fendant or defendants; provided, however, that if the property attached
exceeds in value the amount of the plaintiff's claim, then the defendant or
defendants may dissolve such attachment by giving bonds, condition as
aforesaid, with security approved as aforesaid, in double the amount of the
plaintiff's claim.

Effect of bankruptcy proceedings upon bond.

Where the attachment is dissolved by giving bond, and more than four months
after the issue of the attachment the defendant in the attachment goes into
bankruptcy and later is discharged, a qualified judgment in the short note case
may nevertheless be entered against the defendant, so as to bind the bond. Kendrick
v. Warren, 110 Md. 72.

But no judgment can be entered and the bond is not liable where the attachment
is issued within four months prior to the bankruptcy proceedings. Crook-Horner
Co. v. Gilpin, 112 Md. 1.

Generally.

This section is peculiarly appropriate to an attachment on original process. If
this section authorizes the dissolution of an attachment on judgment by tha filing
of a bond, the bond in question held not to be in literal compliance with this .section.
The filing of a bond held not to convert the suit into an action, in personam.
W.est v. Wood Company, 140 Md. 520.

The bond takes the place of the attachment, and the short note case remains to
be tried just as before. Randle v. Mellen, 67 Md. 188.

The defendant can dissolve the attachment only during the term 'to which the
attachment is returned. Walters v. Monroe, 17 Md. 505.

The defendant must appear before he can dissolve. If a bond is given and the
attachment dissolved without the defendant's appearance, and it appears that the
court rendering judgment had no jurisdiction, the bond is not liable. The giving of
the bond by third parties does not amount to an appearance by the defendant.
Clark v. Bryan, 16 Md. 178.

The amendment of the declaration or of the voucher in an attachment suit, does
not discharge the surety on a bond to dissolve the attachment, unless such amend-
ment makes a new cause of action or imposes upon the surety a greater liability
than that assumed when the bond was delivered. Amendment held not to discharge
the surety. Warren v. Kendrick, 113 Md. 605.

See art. 52, sec. 52, and notes to sec. 39 (this article).

An. Code, sec. 20. 1904, sec. 20. 1888, sec. 20. 1852, ch. 155, sec. 1.

20. Any absent defendant, or any one in his behalf, may file a petition
to the judge of a court from which an attachment has issued, before the
return day of such attachment, praying that the said writ be quashed and
set aside; and thereupon the judge shall order the sheriff to return said
writ and the proceedings thereunder immediately before him; and upon