298 ARTICLE 9.

But the pendency of an attachment may be pleaded in abatement. If the gar-
nishee compromise with the plaintiff for a sum less than the debt due by him (the
garnishee) to the defendant, the compromise is valid as to the plaintiff, but it does
not prevent the defendant from recovering the balance of his debt from the gar-
nishee. Brown v. Somerville, 8 Md. 444. See also Baldwin v. Wright, 3 Gill, 241.

Attachments on Original Process for Fraud.

An. Code, sec. 36. 1904, sec. 36. 1888, sec. 35. 1864, ch. 306, sec. 1. 1892, ch. 510.
36. Every person and body corporate that has the right to become a
plaintiff in -any action or proceeding, before any judicial tribunal in this
State, shall have the right to proceed by attachment in the following case?,
upon the conditions and in the manner herein provided. Before any such
writ of attachment shall be issued, the plaintiff or some person in his be-
half shall make an affidavit before the clerk of the court from which said
attachment shall issue, or before some officer authorized by the laws of the
State of Maryland to take affidavits as enumerated in section 5 of this
article, stating that the defendant or defendants, named in the writ of
attachment, is or are bona fide indebted to the plaintiff or plaintiffs in the
sum of ———— dollars, over and above all discounts; and that the plaintiff
knows or has good reason to 'believe, either (first) that the debtor is about
to abscond from this State, or (second) that the defendant has assigned,
disposed of or concealed, or is about to assign, dispose of or conceal his
property or some portion thereof, with intent to defraud his creditors, or
(third) that the defendant fraudulently contracted the debt or-incurred
the obligation respecting which the action is brought, or (fourth) that the
defendant has removed or is about to remove his property, or some portion
thereof, out of the State with intent to defraud his creditors.

The affidavit.

A plaintiff need not confine himself to one of the disjunctive allegations, but may
include them all. Howard v. Oppenheimer, 25 Md. 362.

As the statute requires the affidavit to state that " the plaintiff knows," etc.,
it will not do for someone making oath in behalf of the plaintiff to swear that " he
(the affiant) knows," etc. Dean v. Oppenheimer, 25 Md. 377. But see Stewart v.
Katz, 30 Md. 334.

A variance between the proof and the allegations of the affidavit, is fatal. Dumay
v. Sanchez, 71 Md. 508.

And see notes to sec. 4.

The fact that the affidavit used in the case at bar is, withdrawn from a former
suit between the same parties brought about a year previous in another county is
an irregularity and not jurisdictional, and hence does not sustain a motion to quash.
Bonn v. Linders, 116 Md. 56.

What amounts to fraud.

A deed of trust condemned by the law as fraudulent, is a foundation for attach-
ment under this section—a fraudulent intent or purpose need not be shown aliunde
the deed. Whedbee v. Stewart, 40 Md. 423. See also Main v. Lynch, 54 Md. 670.

The fact that in a deed for the benefit of his creditors, the grantor reserves
property exempted by law from execution, does not make the deed fraudulent so
as to entitle creditors to attach. Muhr v. Pinover, 67 Md. 480.

A transfer by one partner to the other of all his interest in the firm, held under
the proof to be fraudulent, entitling firm creditors to attach. Collier v. Hanna, 71
Md. 253; Franklin, etc., Co. v. Henderson, 86 Md. 452.

For a failure of proof that the defendant has assigned, etc., his property with
intent to defraud his creditors, and that the debt was fraudulently contracted, see
Johnson v. Stockham, 89 Md. 358; Strauss v. Rose, 59 Md. 525; Palmer v. Hughes,
84 Md. 652; Pitts v. Smelser, 87 Md. 493.