Case ID: h-j_1/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chase, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1804.
    Wilson vs. Starr.
    The appearance of the defendant to an attachment, at the trial term, and his giving jspecial bail after the garnishee has pleaded, and issue has been joined on such plea, dissilves the attachment, and the defendant is not bound by the plea of the garnishee, but may plead de novo.
    Habeas cobpus cum causa to Baltimore county CulU U
    . Hollingsworth, fotf the plaintiff,
    in moved for a writ of procedendo, stating that in this case there was an attachment on warrant which was laid in the hands of a garnishee, who appeared to the attachment and ° * i* i i • pleaded non assumpsit and nulla bona, and issues were joined. That at the trial court the original defendant appeared and gave special bail; the attachment was dissolved, and the present writ of habeas corpus produced and allowed. He contended, that a pida had. been pleaded by the garnishee, for the original defendant, viz non assumpsit, and issue joined thereon; that the dissolution of the attachment did not strike out that issue or the plea. And that issue having been joined a writ of habeas corpus could not be allowed. Therefore, that a writ of procedendo ought to be awarded»
   Chase, Ch. J.

This is to be considered a new ease against the original defendant. Upon bis appearance, and giving special bail, by which the attachment was dissolved, he had a right to plead for himself, and the plea put in by the garnishee could not affect him.

PROCEDENSO REFUSE».