Williams v. Jones

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bond of Milton A. Jones and others, which constitutes the cause of action in this case is a sufficient evidence of debt to support the attachment. It is a bond conditioned for the payment of money, and although the exact amount it was intended to secure is not stated in the condition, yet this may be certainly ascertained. The instrument contains all the elements or data necessary to enable the Court and jury to ascertain the amount due thereon ; and to justify the appellee in verifying the same by his oath.

This is all that is required by our attachment laws, as was decided in Wilson vs. Wilson, 8 Gill, 194 , and McAllister vs. Eichengreen 34 Md., 54 . In this case it has been settled by the agreement of counsel, that the amount stated in the affidavit is the true ⁵⁶⁶ amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover, provided the attachment can he sustained. The garnishee is a trustee appointed hy a decree of the Court of Chancery, and the writ is laid in his hands for the purpose of subjecting to condemnation certain money held by him in that character, alleged to belong to Milton. A. Jones, the non-resident debtor ; but no valid objection to the pi’oceeding exists on account of the fiduciary character of the garnishee, inasmuch as the final audit has heen ratified by the Court of Chancery, and the share, or portion of the fund belonging to Milton A. Jones, or his assignee, has been ascertained, and an order has been passed in that Court direcfcing'the trustee to pay it over.

Cockey vs. Leister, 12 Md., 124 ; McPherson vs. Snowden, 19 Md., 233 . The chief grounds of objection relied on by the appellant are First. That the rights of the appellee to maintain the claim have been finally adjudged and decided against him by the Chancery Court, and that he is thereby estopped. And Secondly.

That by the assignment from Milton A. Jones to Frederick A. Snyder, tile former was divested of all right and interest in the fund, and no part of it is liable to condemnation in the present suit. These will be disposed of in their order, and first, as to the estoppel. It is very clear to us that this defence cannot prevail. There was no adjudication hy the Chancery Court of this claim upon its merits.

The appellee filed a petition in that Court praying for an order directing the trustee to pay this claim out of