
    McReynolds, assignee, vs. Neal.
    Where an attachment was issued without an affidavit, as required by law, and a motion was made to quash the attachment: It is held, that an affidavit cannot be received by way of amendment, and the attachment was quashed.
    On the 27th day of August, 1846, Williams, a justice of the peace for the county of Monroe, issued an attachment in favor of McReynolds, as assignee of Dyer, against Neal, on the ground that Neal, was about to remove his property privately out of the state, and that he was justly indebted to McRey-nolds the sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars. This attachment states on its face, - that this information was communicated to the justice on oath. A bond was executed but no affidavit accompanied the attachment and bond. It was levied on a slave and returned to the circuit court of Monroe county, and a declaration in assumpsit was filed. A motion to quash the attachment was made, and thereupon the plaintiff tendered an affidavit which stated, that defendant was indebted to him the sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars, and that said Neal was about to remove his property privately out of the state; and he also tendered the af.fidavit of Williams, the justice, which alledged that the facts stated in the affidavit of plaintiff, now tendered, was sworn to when the attachment was issued.
    The presiding judge, E. Alexander, refused to receive the affidavits by way of amendment, but quashed the attachment and discharged the levy. From this judgment the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Brown, for plaintiff.
    
      Keith, for defendant.
   Reese, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit commenced by attachment. The affidavit required by the statute was not made and signed by the party praying the attachment and returned to the court. For this reason a motion to quash the attachment was made, which, on argument, the court adjudged should be done.

Pending this motion, the plaintiff tendered the affidavit required by the statute, and asked that it might be received by way of amendment. This was refused. And the only question here is, was it properly refused.

That it was, results as a corollary, not only from the posi-live requirement of the statute, but from almost every decision ever made by this court on .the subject of attachments, and is too clear for argument.

The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.  