374 ARTICLE 9

proceedings, shall suffer because of the wrongful suing out of said attach-
ment, which bond shall be filed in the office of the clerk issuing such attach-
ment; the condition of said bond shall be substantially in the following
form: The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas the above
bounden ———— hath on the day of the date hereof, ordered an attachment
out of (naming the court from which said attachment shall issue) at the
suit of ———— vs. ————, for the sum of ————, and the same being
about to be sued out of said court, returnable on the ———— day of ————
next; now if the said ———— shall prosecute his suit with effect, or in the
case of failure thereof shall well and truly pay and satisfy the said ————
and any other person interested in the proceedings all such costs of said
suit, and all such damages as he or they shall or may suffer or incur by
reason of the wrongful suing out of such attachment, then the above obliga-
tion to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Every attach-
ment hereafter issued without a bond and affidavit taken as aforesaid is
hereby declared illegal and void and shall be dismissed.

The bondsmen are not released because the bond, through error, is payable to the
defendant instead of to the state. McLuckie v. Williams, 68 Md. 263. But see Wana-
maker v. Bowes, 36 Md. 42.

The sufficiency of the sureties is left to the clerk. Stewart v. Katz, 30 Md. 344; Gable
v. Brooks, 48 Md. 108.

Where the principal and two sureties sign the bond, the fact that the fourth signa-
ture to the bond is unauthorized, does not defeat the liability of the remaining obligors.
Gable v. Brooks, 48 Md. 113.

If the principal is not bound, neither are the sureties; and a party can not be both
principal and surety. Wanamaker v. Bowes, 36 Md. 56.

That the bond was approved must appear from the proceedings. If it is marked
"Accepted," though this is not signed by the clerk, such endorsement, coupled with
the recital in the writ, is sufficient. Howard v. Oppenheimer, 25 Md. 363.

Where a bond is signed by "H. R. Agent," thus purporting to bind A. as principal
in the bond but not doing so because unauthorized, "H. R." is himself bound as
principal, and the bond is valid as to the sureties. Stewart v. Katz, 30 Md. 346.

The rule of court prohibiting attorneys from becoming sureties has no application
to bonds under this section. Lewis v. Higgins, 52 Md. 618.

Cited but not construed in Gill v. Physicians', etc., Bldg., 153 Md. 397; Lanasa v.
Beggs, 159 Md. 313.

Where attachment bond ran to defendants and any other interest person, third
person whose property was wrongfully seized under attachment could sue on bond.
Appel Sons v. State, 167 Md. 627.

And see notes to sec. 19.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 40. 1912, sec. 40. 1904, sec. 40. 1888, sec. 39. 1864, ch. 306, sec. 5.

40. In all cases where two or more persons are jointly indebted, either
as partners or otherwise, and an affidavit shall be filed as hereinbefore
provided, so as to make one or more of such joint debtors amenable to the
process of attachment, then the writ of attachment shall issue against the
lands and tenements, goods, chattels and credits of such as are so brought
within the provisions of this law; but the writ of summons shall issue
against all the joint defendants, as in other actions against joint defendants.

If one of two joint (partnership) debtors is a resident of Baltimore City, the firm
may be proceeded against in Baltimore City by an attachment on original process.
But the attachment will be quashed unless actual or constructive fraud was committed
jointly. Collier v. Hanna, 71 Md. 253.

In an attachment against one partner as an absconding debtor, the other partner
being summoned, the assets of the firm cannot be condemned on a partnership debt.
Johnston v. Matthews, 32 Md. 368.

Where an attachment on original process is sued out against a partnership and
levied on partnership property, and one of the partners absconds so that the writ can-
not be served on him, the remaining partner represents the firm and the attachment
is valid. Thomas v. Brown, 67 Md. 519.

An attachment levied against partnership property on a debt alleged to be due by
the. firm, though the judgment of condemnation is entered against one partner only,
will be quashed. Boyd v. Wolf, 88 Md. 342.

As to joint obligations and tenancies, see art. 50.