Case ID: dc_2/html/0465-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Munroe v. Buller Cocke et al.
    
    
      ■ In order to obtain an attachment under the Maryland Act of 1795, c. 56, the affidavit must be positive as to the amount of the debt.
    Attachment under the Maryland Act of 1795, c. 56.
    The affidavit upon which the justice of the peace made his warrant to the clerk of this Court to issue an attachment, states “ that Samuel Robertson, not being a citizen of the District of Columbia, and not residing therein, is bond fide indebted to him, the said Robert Munroe, the sum of $2,053.37 over and above all discounts, and the said Munroe at the same time produces the account current which is hereunto annexed, by which the said Samuel is so indebted ; and the said Robert likewise states that he hath drawn on the said Robertson for the sum of $1500, and also for the sum of $2,223.10, which drafts, though not due, the said Robert understands from the said Robertson, and verily [believes] will not be paid, and further, that the latter draft for $2,223.10, hath never been accepted by the said Robertson, and the said Robert hath therefore allowed’ no credit or discount for said drafts. He further states that said Robertson informed him, some time ago; that he would be entitled to a charge against said Robert’s account, for some loss that he expected would accrue in the sale of certain flour on their joint account'; no account has been exhibited stating the amount of such loss, and therefore he hath allowed said Robertson, in stating his account, no credit.”
    The warrant of the justice of the peace to the clerk of this Court, says, “ upon the receipt of this, together with the annexed proofs, you are required to issue an attachment against the goods and chattels, lands and credits of Samuel Robertson, and for so doing this shall be your warrant, as witness my hand and seal,” &c. Upon the return of the writ of attachment,
    
      Mr. J. Dunlop, for the plaintiff,
    moved for judgment of condemnation.
   The Court

(nem. con.) was of opinion, that judgment could not be granted, on account of the uncertainty and irregularity of the affidavit and warrant. (Attachment quashed.)