
    Edmund Didier vs. Washington Kerr.
    
    December, 1842.
    The affidavit under the act of 1795, chap. 56, to authorise the issuing of a warrant to the clerk of the county court, for an attachment to compel the appearance of an absent or absconding debtor, is insufficient, if purporting to bo made by the attorney in fact of the creditor.
    Appeal from Baltimore county court.
    This was an Attachment, to compel the appearance of the appellee, commenced on the 4th May, 1839. The warrant was founded upon the deposition of “Henry Didier, attorney in fact of Edmund Didier,” and was returned levied upon certain real property in the city of Baltimore. The writ against the appellee was returned non est. Judgment of condemnation was entered at the same term, when the appellee moved the court to quash the attachment, because the account on which the order to issue the same was granted, is not verified by the oath of the plaintiff himself, but by a pretended attorney in fact. At January term, 1841, the county court struck out the judgment of condemnation, and quashed the writ of attachment. The plaintiff appealed to this court.
    The act of 1795, chap. 56, sec. 1, provides, that the creditor may make application for an attachment to any judge, &c., and on the oath or affirmation of such creditor, made before any, 8¡c., that the said debtor is bona fide indebted to him, in the sum, fyc., over and above all discounts,” &c., the judge, &c., shall issue a warrant for an attachment, &c.
    The cause was argued before Buchanan, C. J., Stephen, Archer, Dorsey, Chambers and Spence, J.
    By R. Johnson for the appellant, and
    By J. Mason Campbell for the appellee.
   By the Court-

judgment AFFIRMED.  