
    John McNamara and another vs. Dennis A Garrity and another.
    Kennebec.
    Opinion November 9, 1886.
    
      Arrest on mesne process. Affidavit. x
    To justify the arrest on mesne process of one of the joint debtors, the affidavit need not contain the pronoun in the singular form, the plural form is sufficient.
    • On exceptions from superior court.
    This was an action of debt, on bond, purporting to be given in accordance with R. S., c. 113, § 15, commonly called a "fifteen day” bond.
    At the trial the defendants introduced in evidence the affidavit attached to the original writ, in words and figures, as follows :
    
      "State of Maine.
    "Kennebec, ss. Hallowell, Sept. 6, 1883.
    "Then personally appeared Herbert Blake, attorney, the within named creditor, and made oath that he has reason to believe, and does believe, that the within named debtors are about to depart and reside beyond the limits of the state, and take with them property or means of their own, exceeding the amount required for their immediate support, and that the demand sued for, or the principal part thereof, amounting to at least ten dollars, is due to the within named creditor.
    Herbert Blake,
    Attorney for creditor.”
    Duly sworn to.
    The defendants requested the justice presiding to rule, as a matter of law, that the affidavit was insufficient in law to authorize the sheriff, under the request of plaintiffs, to arrest the defendant, Garrity, in the original suit. The requested ruling was refused, and the presiding justice ruled that the affidavit was sufficient in law to authorize the arrest of said Garrity, by virtue .of which the bond in suit was given.
    To this ruling the defendants alleged exceptions.
    
      II. M. Heath, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Loving Farr, for the defendants.
    Though the action be joint, the service of the writ is several and distinct. One service may be by arrest, and the other by summons and attachment. No person can be arrested in an action on contract, on mesne process, unless the affidavit allege specifically and unequivocally that he is about to depart from the state, etc., with property or moans of his own, and take with him property or moans of his own, exceeding the amount required for his immediate support. Nothing should be left to inference. Proctor v. Lothrop, 68 Maine, 256, and cases there cited. Stare decisis. -
    
   Virgin, J.

Of the several questions raised by the bill of exceptions, the only one relied on and argued by the defendants’ counsel, relates to the sufficiency of the affidavit, wherein the plural forms of the pronouns were used, although only one of ■the debtors was arrested.

In 1851, the same question was raised, but the court considered 'it too technical and adjudged the affidavit sufficient. Stare ■decisis. Cates v. Noble, 33 Maine, 258.

Exceptions overruled.

Peters, C. J., Daneorth, Libbey, Foster and Haskell, .JJ., concurred.  