Case Name: Richard Ten Broeck v. E. H. Pendleton, Garnishee of E. C. Moore
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1838-03
Citations: 5 Cranch 464
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard Ten Broeck v. E. H. Pendleton, Garnishee of E. C. Moore.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 5
Pages: 464–465

Head Matter:
Richard Ten Broeck v. E. H. Pendleton, Garnishee of E. C. Moore.
An attachment to answer in a plea of trespass on the case, founded upon a promis sory note having a scrawl for a seal, will he quashed, and the plaintiff .will not have leave to amend, nor to declare in debt.
This was an attachment under the Maryland Act of .1795,' c. 56, to compel the defendant to answer to the plaintiff “ in a plea of trespass on the case.” The capias was also to answer in a plea of trespass on the case. The short note was in these words: “ The cause of action in this case, is a promissory note drawn by the said Edmund C. Moore, in favor of the said plaintiff, dated Baltimore, 24th October, 1835, at one day after date, for $450, now due and unpaid.”
The ptomissory note, produced in evidence, and which was annexed to the order of the justice, for the attachment, was as follows :
“ $450. Baltimore, October the 24th, 1835.
“ One day after date, I promise to pay E. Ten Rroeck, or order, the sum of $450. Edmund C. MooRE, [l. s.] ”
Mr. Brent, appeared for the garnishee, and moved the Court to quash the attachment, because it is to answer in a plea of trespass on the ease, when the cause of action is in debt; the note being under seal. The case of Trasher v. Everhart, 3 Gill & Johnson, 235, is decisive.
Mr. Bradley, for the plaintiff.
The practice here is different from that in Maryland. There, the short note is considered as a declaration ; but here, if the defendant appears to the capias, the plaintiff may file a declaration, in any form of action in case or debt. The only object of the attachment is to compel an appearance. Barry v. Foyles, 1 Peters, 311, 314.
But the Court will give leave to amend, if the justice of the case requires it; as in the eases of McCloud v. Coliman, and Cooper v. Hardy, in this Court.
The decisions of the Maryland courts since the separation, are not binding upon this Court. Wallingford v. Allen, 10 Peters, 583.

Opinion:
The CouRT
(Cranch, C. J.,
contra:,) was of opinion, that the attachment should be quashed.
Mr. Bradley then moved to amend the short note, by stating the instrument to be under seal, and to declare in debt. There is no bail to be injured by the amendment. The property of the debtor, himself, is attached. The motion to quash is made really by the defendant, through the garnishee.
The Court refused leave to amend by changing the action from case to debt, because the short note of the cause of action would not have given the defendant the notice which the act contemplates.
The attachment was quashed, because it was to compel the defendant to answer in an action of trespass on the case, when the cause of action was in debt upon a sealed instrument.