clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
The Annotated Code of the Public General Laws of Maryland, 1939
Volume 379, Page 373   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

ATTACHMENTS 373

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 attachment
the debtor has made a valid deed of trust for the benefit of his creditors, the attach-
ment 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. Buckhannqn Lumber Co., 70 Md. 448.

The rule day act of Baltimore City is not applicable to attachment cases. Sanborn v.
Mullen, 77 Md. 480.

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

And see notes to sec. 40.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 37. 1912, 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, 1924, sec. 38. 1912, 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.

This section referred to in construing sec. 46. See notes thereto. Sanitary Grocery
Co. v. Soper, 146 Md. 133.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 39. 1912, sec. 39. 1904, sec. 39. 1888, sec. 38. 1894, ch. 104.

39. Every clerk before issuing an attachment under the preceding
section shall take from the plaintiff or some person on his behalf bond to
the State of Maryland, with security, to be approved by said clerk, in double
the sum alleged to be due by the defendant or defendants, conditioned
for satisfying all costs which may be awarded to such defendant or defen-
dants, or to any other persons interested in the proceedings, and all damages
which the defendant or defendants, or any other persons interested in the


 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
The Annotated Code of the Public General Laws of Maryland, 1939
Volume 379, Page 373   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives