Cox v. Waters

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The motion to quash the attachment in this case, is based upon the alleged reason “that a sufficient voucher or account is not annexed to the affidavit.” The account is as follows : “Baltimore, June 29th, 1870. “De Witt C. Cary, “Dr. to Jas. S. Waters. “To cash loaned him at sundry times on call, . . $7,500” Ho objection is made to the affidavit, it is in due form as prescribed by the Code, Article 10, section 4. That section also requires that “ the creditor shall produce the bond, account or other evidences of debt, by which the said debtor is so indebted.” In this case it does not appear that the appellee holds any bond, note or other written evidence of the debt.

The presumption is that the liability rests only on the verbal contract of the debtor. Ho other voucher therefore could be produced, except an account showing the nature and the amount of the alleged indebtedness. That is done here, the account is for cash loaned to the defendant on call, $7,500. If the account had been thus stated it would have been quite unnecessary to specify more particularly the date of the loan; or whether the whole sum was lent at one time, or at different times, making up in the aggregate the sum claimed.

But the whole objection seems to grow out of the statement in the body of the account, that the cash was loaned “ at sun ⁴⁶² dry times,” and the supposed defect consists in the omission to state the items, specifying the several sums loaned, with the dates thereof. (Decided 20th June, 1870.) There has been no adjudication by this Court on this precise point. In general it is sufficient if the account be such as would