ATTACHMENTS. 299

In an attachment, under this section the question for decision is not whether
the plaintiffs had good reason to believe defendant was defrauding his creditors, but
whether such fraud was in fact committed; fraud not made out. An appeal lies from
the action of the lower court on a motion to quash, though it involves an issue of fact.
(This opinion refers to art. 9, sec. 26, but apparently sec. 36 was intended.) Lang v.
Shanawolf, 137 Md. 18.

For a failure of proof that the defendant is about to abscond and that he has
assigned, etc., his property with intent to defraud his creditors, see Dumay v.
Sanchez, 71 Md. 513; Clark v. Meixsell, 29 Md. 230.

For a failure of proof that the debt was fraudulently contracted, the attachment
being laid in the hands of a trustee for the benefit of creditors, see Strauss v. Rose,
59 Md. 533; Clark v. Meixsell, 29 Md. 229.

For proof that the debt was fraudulently contracted, see Dumay v. Sanchez,
71 Md. 514; Thomas v. Brown, 67 Md. 520.

Generally.

An attachment can be maintained before the maturity of the debt, where the
affidavit avers that the debt was fraudulently contracted. Summers v. Oberndorf,
73 Md. 316.

But where the foundation of the attachment is that the defendant has assigned,
etc., his property, with intent to defraud his creditors, and it is not alleged that the
debt was fraudulently contracted, the plaintiff, having attached before the maturity
of the debt, cannot uphold the attachment on the ground that it was fraudulently
contracted. Dellone v. Hull, 47 Md. 116.

Although a debt may have been fraudulently contracted, if prior to the attach-
ment the debtor has made a valid deed of trust for the benefit of his creditors,
the attachment cannot affect property in the trustee's hands. This section is only
a remedial act; it gives the creditor no lien, but only a more speedy remedy. Horwitz
v. Ellinger, 31 Md. 492. See also May v. Buckhannon Lumber Co., 70 Md. 448.

The rule day' act of Baltimore city is not applicable to attachment cases. San-
born v. Mullen, 77 Md. 480.

An attachment may be issued under this section against the property of a de-
fendant alleged to have stolen money from the plaintiff. The term '" indebted,"
as used in the attachment law, is not to be construed technically, or in a strict legal
sense. The plaintiff's claim may be upon an implied contract. Downs v. Baltimore,
111 Md. 692.

And see notes to sec. 40.

An. Code, sec. 37. 1904, sec. 37. 1888, sec. 36. 1864, ch. 306, sec. 2.
37. At the time of making said affidavit the plaintiff shall produce the
bond, account or other evidence. of the debt, by which said debtor is
indebted, and the same shall be filed among the papers in the cause.
See notes to sec. 4.

An. Code, sec. 38. 1904, sec. 38. 1888, sec. 37. 1864, ch. 306, sec. 3. 1888, ch. 507.
38. There shall be issued with every attachment issued under, the pro-
visions of the two preceding sections, a writ of summons against the
defendant, as is usual in actions at law. The action shall be instituted either
in the county where the defendant resides or where the property proposed
to be attached may be located or found, or where the proposed garnishee
resides; but if the action be instituted in any county other than that wherein
the defendant resides, the writ of summons against the defendant shall
be directed to the sheriff of the county wherein the defendant resides,
returnable to the court in which the action shall be brought.

If the defendant is actually summoned in the county where the attachment is
issued, the court has jurisdiction although the summons was not directed to the
county of the defendant's residence. A substantial compliance with the terms of
the statute is sufficient. The suit need not be brought in the defendant's home
county. Bonn v. Linders, 116 Md. 54.