Hoffman v. Reed

Alvey, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a proceeding by attachment, taken under section 7 of Art. 45 of the Code, to affect the property of a married woman. The Code authorizes the proceeding, “upon petition and proof of claim, according to the circumstances of each case.” The proceeding is purely one in rem, no ³⁷⁴ personal judgment being contemplated by tbe statute; and hence no summons is required to be issued to the party whose property is sought to be affected. Brent vs. Taylor & Marks, 6 Md., 58 .

The only notice required to be given, apart from the seizure of the property, or the notice to the garnishee, is the putting up of a copy of the short note, framed upon the claim of the plaintiff, at the Court-house door. Brent vs. Taylor, supra. The preliminary proof of claim, in order to procure the order of Court for the attachment, is entirely ex parte; and be’cause of its ex.parte character, and the absence of all personal process against the party whose property is sought to be seized and condemned, it is incumbent upon the Court, to which the petition is addressed, to see that a fair prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff, within the terms of the statute, before- ordering the attachment to issue. Otherwise the grossest injustice might be. done by enforcing claims against the small earnings-of married women, that could not for a moment be supported if brought to the test of a fair and impartial trial in the ordinary course of legal proceeding.

In this case, the petition and affidavit proceed upon a claim for $200, for professional services rendered by agreement, and for cash money laid out and advanced for the benefit and advantage of the defendant, at her request,- “ as appears by the open account hereto annexed.” Tbe account annexed is simply in this form : “To professional service, as per agreement, $200,”. How much for professional service, and how much for money advanced, the account does not show. Nor does it show the nature of-the services rendered; — whether for that of a doctor, lawyer or artist. The variance between the claim as set forth in the petition and affidavit, and that set forth in the account filed, is patent and fatal.

The affidavit was made to prove a claim for services, and for money advanced, without designating how much on either account; while the account is for services alone. ³⁷⁵ Rut, in addition to this objection to the proceeding on the