376 ARTICLE 9

Attachments in Actions Ex Contractu for Unliquidated Damages and in
Actions for Wrongs Independent of Contract.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 44. 1912, sec. 44. 1904, sec. 44. 1888, sec. 43. 1888; ch. 507.

44. Attachments may also be issued against non-resident or absconding
debtors in cases arising ex contractu, where the damages are unliquidated,
and in actions for wrongs independent of contract; but in such cases no
attachments shall issue until a declaration shall have been filed, setting out
specially and in detail the breach of contract complained of, or the tort
actually committed, verified by the affidavit of the plaintiff or some one
on his behalf, and until a bond shall be filed, similar in all respects to the
bond required to be given in cases of attachments, on original process for
fraud, as prescribed by section 39 of this article. In cases arising under
this section, the practice and pleadings shall in all other particulars con-
form to the practice and proceedings against non-resident and absconding
debtors in actions ex contractu for liquidated damages.

When damages are unliquidated.

Whether damages for breach of contract are liquidated or unliquidated, depends on
whether the contract itself fixes the amount, or furnishes a standard by which the
amount may be determined with sufficient certainty to enable the plaintiff to make
oath to his claim. And damages are not unliquidated because less than is claimed may
be ultimately recovered—matters of defence in mitigation of damages, do not affect
the standard of damages. Dirickson v. Showell, 79 Md. 53; Warwick v. Chase, 23 Md.
160. See also Smithson v. U. S. Telegraph Co., 29 Md. 166; Steuart v. Chappell, 98 Md.
531; Keen v. Whittingdon, 40 Md. 497; Blick v. Mercantile Trust Co., 113 Md. 490.

An attachment by a lawyer for professional services, in the absence of an agree-
ment as to the amount to be paid, is for unliquidated damages, and the procedure must
follow this section. Steuart v. Chappell, 98 Md. 531; Gill v. Physicians', etc., Bldg.,
153 Md. 396.

Damages arising from a breach of a complicated agreement embracing many things
to be performed, are unliquidated. Hough v. Kugler, 36 Md. 194.

And see notes to see. 4.

Generally.

This section applies to an original proceeding only, and cannot be made ancillary to
an attachment on two non ests. An affidavit (as prescribed in sec. 4), must accompany
the declaration, account and bond. Steuart v. Chappell, 100 Md. 541.

Objections to affidavit, declaration and voucher, overruled. No variance between
affidavit and declaration. Gill v. Physicians', etc., Bldg., 153 Md. 397.

Cited but not construed in Amer. Surety Co. v. Kitzmiller, 144 Md. 165 (see notes
to sec. 13); Lanasa v. Beggs, 159 Md. 313; Appel Sons v. State, 167 Md. 628.

And see notes to secs. 39 and 47.

Several Attachments.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 45. 1912, sec. 45. 1904, sec. 45. 1888, sec. 44. 1867, ch. 418.

45. The plaintiff may have more than one attachment or writ of attach-
ment, to be laid in the hands of different persons or levied on other property
or effects than that taken under the first, though the first be still outstand-
ing ; provided, that but one satisfaction of the debt or demand shall be made,
and that it shall be in the discretion of the court in all such cases, whether
any costs, or if any, what amount of costs shall be allowed on the subse-
quent attachment or attachments.

An objection to an attachment overruled, in view of this section. Hedrick v. Mark-
ham, 132 Md. 165.

This section referred to in construing sec. 46. See notes thereto. Sanitary Grocery
Co. v. Soper, 146 Md. 134.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 46. 1912, sec. 46. 1904, sec. 46. 1890, ch. 549, sec. 44A.

46. A writ of attachment may be served upon any person by way of gar-
nishment wherever he may be found, either by the sheriff of the juris-