304 ARTICLE 9.

Practice under this section. The burden is upon'the claimant to establish his
claim to the property involved; hence the case at bar could not, at the instance of
of the claimant, have been withdrawn from the jury. When only peremptory in-
struction may be granted. Lemp Brewing Co. v. Mantz, 120 Md. 185.

The proper way to test the bona fides of an assignment of a debt where the debt
has been attached in the creditor's hands, is for the assignee to intervene as claimant.
Fetterhoff v. Sheridan, 94 Md. 452.

A claimant of rights, credits or moneys who proceeds under the practice existing
prior to this section, has the same right to intervene that a claimant of specific
goods has. This section does not repeal any existing law, nor prevent a claimant
from proceeding under the former practice. Kean v. Doerner, 62 Md. 477.

Under this section, the claimant may recover damages growing out of the taking
of his property under the attachment, and it is not necessary that the petition
claim damages. Turner v. Lytle, 59 Md. 203.

A party claiming to own the attached property may or may not intervene as
claimant in the attachment case, as he pleases. Kilpatrick v. O'Connell, 62 Md.
411; Corner v. McIntosh, 48 Md. 390; Richardson v. Hall, 21 Md. 405.

But the claimant loses his right of action against the sheriff for selling his prop-
erty, if he knows of the attachment and does not intervene. Trieber v. Blocher,
10 Md. 14; Fetterhoff v. Sheridan, 94 Md. 452.

A claimant may intervene in the attachment case notwithstanding an order of
court directing the goods to be sold and the proceeds held subject to the decision
of the case, though the proceeds have been paid over to the plaintiff upon his giv-
ing bond, and though the claimant may be prosecuting another suit in the same
court for the same cause. Hall v. Richardson, 16 Md. 396. See also Albert v. Freas,
103 Md. 583.

As to the practice prior to this section, and which still may be resorted to, see, in
addition, Howard v. Oppenheimer, 25 Md. 365; White v. Solomonsky, 30 Md. 585;
Clark v. Meixsell, 29 Md. 228; Carson v. White, 6 Gill, 27.

The landlord's lien upon crops reserved as rent is not divested by process of law
against the tenant—art. 53, sec. 23.

As to claimants of property taken upon execution by a justice of the peace, see
art. 52, secs. 76 and 77.

An. Code, sec. 48. 1904, sec. 48. 1888, sec. 46. 1876, ch. 285. 1888, ch. 507. 1900, ch. 697.

1902, ch. 324.

48. The property attached shall be discharged from the levy and sur-
rendered to such claimant upon the filing of a bond by or on behalf of such
claimant in a penalty equal to double the value of the property as ascer-
tained by an appraisement thereof to be made by the sheriff at the time
of the levy, to be approved of by the clerk and conditioned for satisfying
all costs and such damages not exceeding the real value of the property
attached as the plaintiff shall recover in case said claimant shall fail to
establish his claim.

In order to avail himself of this section, a claimant must proceed under sec. 47.
Kean v. Doerner, 62 Md. 478.

But a claimant who does not desire immediate possession of the property, need
not give bond in order to proceed under sec. 47. Albert v. Freas, 103 Md. 590.

There must be an appraisement, but the fact that the claimant's bond is in a
sum less than that required by this section does not defeat the claimant's case, nor
prevent his recovering damages. Turner v. Lytle, 59 Md. 205.

And see notes to sec. 39.

An. Code, sec. 49. 1904, sec. 49. 1888, sec. 47. 1876, ch. 285. 1888, ch. 507.

49. In case the plaintiff in such attachment • is not satisfied with the
sufficiency of the surety or sureties in the bond taken under the preceding
section, he may at any time before judgment apply to the judge of the
court in which the said bond is filed for an order requiring the petitioner
to give additional security, notice of which application shall be given to the