360 ARTICLE 9

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.

Bank deposit in trust for husband and wife, subject to order of either, balance at
death of either to survivor, is not subject to attachment by creditors. Fairfax v.
Savings Bank, 175 Md. 136.

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; Nichol-
son 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
$2,000 to the company, the $2,000 in bank then belongs to the agent, and may be
condemned in the attachment. First National Bank v. Jaggers, 31 Md. 50.

Where H. is indebted to B., both H. and B. residing in North Carolina, and B.
is indebted to E., a resident of Maryland, an attachment may be laid by E. in the
hands of H. while he is temporarily in Maryland, and the garnishment binds H's. in-
debtedness to B. Full faith and credit must be given such judgment by the courts of
North Carolina when it is pleaded by H. in a suit against him bv B. in the latter state.
Temporary presence of a garnishee in a state gives a court of that state jurisdiction to
render judgment in the garnishment proceedings upon personal service within the
state, if during such temporary presence in the state the principal debtor could have
sued the garnishee there. Duty of the garnishee to notify the defendant. Harris v. Balk,
198 U. S. 215.

Under art. 23, sec. 236, of Code of 1912 (see art. 48A, sec. 202, this Code), money
payable (to a resident or non-resident) by a fraternal beneficiary association, is not
liable to attachment. Himmel v. Eichengreen, 107 Md. 610.

It is not necessary in all cases that there be an actual seizure of the property at-
tached, since where it cannot be seized and taken from the garnishee, the plaintiff
has the right to interrogate the garnishee and thus get a sufficient description of the
property into the record. Object of the seizure and schedule. De Beam v. De Beam,
119 Md. 425.

Certain registered bonds of a foreign corporation held to be property within the
meaning of this section and, under the facts of the case, attachable. De Beam v.
Prince de Beam, 115 Md. 676. And see De Beam v. Winans, 119 Md. 394; De Beam v.
De Beam, 119 Md. 421; U. S. Express Co. v. Hurlock, 120 Md. 113; De Beam v.
De Beam, 126 Md. 630.

Money appropriated by act of congress to meet French spoilation claims, such
money being for the benefit of the next of kin of original sufferers, cannot be at-
tached. Thurston v. Wilmer, 94 Md. 455. And see Deacon v. Oliver, 14 How. 610.

A creditor of a wife may attach funds belonging to her in the hands of her husband.
A debt may be attached prior to its maturity. O'Denhal v. Devlin, 48 Md. 444.

Where property is bought in the name of A., and B., pays the purchase money,
the latter has an attachable interest in the property. Cecil Bank v. Snively, 23 Md. 253.

An equitable interest in land may be attached. Campbell v. Norris, 3 H. & McH.
535; Pratt v. Law, 9 Cranch. 457.

The right of stoppage in transitu, if it exists, has priority over an' attachment of
the property. O'Brien v. Norris, 16 Md. 129.

Money due, which was by agreement to be paid in work and labor, may be attached.
Louderman v. Wilson, 2 H. & J. 379.

An attachment will lie against the original holder of promissory notes laid in the
hands of the maker, notwithstanding the original holder has transferred the notes
to a third party, if the latter is not a bona fide holder for value. Luckmeyer v, Seltz,¹
61 Md. 324. But see Cruett v. Jenkins, 53 Md. 217.

Where there is a loss under a fire insurance policy providing that the company may
either pay the insured a certain amount or else rebuild, and the company elects
to rebuild, an attachment by a creditor of the insured laid in the hands of the com-
pany, must fail. Stone v. Mutual, etc., Co., 74 Md. 579.

An agent who was to sell stock of a company and collect his commissions as the
company collected the subscriptions, has nothing in the hands of the company .liable
to attachment until the company collects the subscriptions, though it may be that