
    TILLER vs. SHEARER.
    1. A declaration in case for wrongfully suing out an attachment, is had on demurrer, if it does not specially deny the ground set forth in the affidavit for suing out the attachment.
    Ereor to the Circuit Court of Sumter.
    Tried before the Hon. Turner Reavis.
    This was an action on the case brought by plaintiff in error against the defendant, for wrongfully and vexatiously suing out an attachment against the plaintiff ancillary to a suit at law. The affidavit which is set out in the declaration, discloses that the ground set forth for suing out the attachment was, that “ the said James Tiller was about to remove out of this State.” The declaration does not contain an averment specially denying the fact stated in the affidavit, that plaintiff was about to remove out of the State. There is a general averment in these words, “ and the plaintiff avers that all said defendant’s action respecting the suing out of said attachment, was wrongful and vexatious.” To this declaration there was a demurrer, which was sustained by the court, and this is assigned for error.
    ¥m. II. Greene, for plaintiff in error.
    Bliss.& Baldwin, contra.
    
    The demurrer was properly sustained. The declaration sets out no sufficient cause of action. It does not deny that the defendant was “ about to remove out of the State.” The averment that “ all the said actions were wrongful and malicious,” is not sufficient, Gould’s Pleading, chap. 4, §§ 7, 24, 29; 1 Chitty’s Pleading, 214; 1 M. & S. 441; 3 ib. 114; 9 Johns. R. 291; 2 ib. 12 ; 12 Ala, 567; 13 ib. 828.
   PHELAN, J.

It is essential to the goodness of a deelara.tion in case, for wrongfully suing out an attachment, that it should contain an averment denying specially the truth of the ground for an attachment, set forth in the affidavit. Here the ground set forth in the affidavit was, that “ the said James Tiller was about to remove out of tbe State.” This is not specially denied. There is a general averment that “ all said defendant’s action respecting the suing out of said attachment, was wrongful and vexatious,” which the court below held not to be sufficient, on demurrer to the declaration. In this there was no error. See Gould’s Pleading, § 24 to 29 ; 1 Chitty P. 214.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.  