
    Amos & Roe vs. Edward R. J. Allnutt.
    In the affidavit required as the groundwork for an attachment at law, it is not necessary to aver the citizenship of the plaintiff in the attachment.
    If the plaintiff, in an attachment against a non-resident defendant, be also himself a non-resident, and the defendant desires to avail himself of that fact, his defence should be made by plea.
    The bond in attachment must pursue the statutory form; the condition need not be in the words of the enacting statute, if the form given, (How. and Hutch. 551, sec. 19) be followed.
    Appeal from the Warren circuit court.
    The plaintiffs in error sued out an attactment at law, against the defendant.
    The affidavit was in these words :
    
      “ The Slate of Mississippi, i
    
      Warren county. $
    “Personally appeared before me, Edward R. Warren, a justice of the peace, in and for said county, Thomas R. Roe, of the firm of Amos & Roe, who being duly sworn, saith that Edward R. J. Allnutt, is justly in debted tosaid Thomas R. Roe and William Amos, who were late merchants and copart-ners, trading under the firm and style of Amos & Roe, in the sum of six hundred eiglity-four dollars and seventy three cents, and that said Allnutt is an inhabitant of the state of Louisiana, so that the ordinary process of the law cannot be served upon him. Thomas R. Roe.”
    Sworn to, and subscribed before me, this 9th day of March, 1842. Edward R. Wakken, J. P.”
    The condition of the bond was as follows :
    “ Now if the said Amos & Roe, shall prosecute their said suit with effect, or in case they fail therein, shall well and truly pay and satisfy the said Allnut, all such costs and damages as shall Jbe awarded against the said Amos & Roe, their heirs, executors, or administrators, in any suit or suits which may hereafter be brought, for wrongfully suing out the said attachment, then the above obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. Thomas R. Roe. (Seal.)
    E. E. Bjruner. (Seal.)
    Daniel Mokgan. (Seal.)
    The court below, on motion, quashed the attachment, for want of sufficient bond and affidavit, and the plaintiff appealed, and now assigns for error, that the attachment was improperly quashed.
    
      A. Burwell, for appellant.
    The appellant sued out an attachment returnable to the April term, 1842, of Warren circuit court, against the appellee, who appears from the affidavit to be an inhabitant of the state of Louisiana.
    The bond, affidavit and writ, are in the form prescribed by the act.
    At the return term, a motion was made to quash the proceedings, and to dismiss the suit, which motion was sustained ■ and from this decision the present appeal was taken. The reasons and grounds for the motion to quash set forth in the record, are insufficient.
    The objection taken in the court below, and which the appel-lee now relies on, is, that it does not appear in the affidavit and other papers of the cause, that the appellants “ are entitled to their remedy by attachment.” The residence or citizenship of the plaintiffs in attachment is not shown, and as we think, need not be averred, to give the court jurisdiction, and to entitle the plaintiffs to the remedy under this statute.
    If the plaintiffs below are in fact residents and citizens of any state other than Mississippi, that fact ought to be put in issue by proper plea, and cannot avail, as the ground of a motion to quash the proceedings.
    The circuit courts are of general jurisdiction, and the presumption is in their favor. In regard to the courts of the United States, and corporation courts, which have cognizance of suits between persons in certain relations to each other, and in none other, a different rule prevails; and it is incumbent on the plaintiff to show all the facts upon which the jurisdiction of the court depends. If this be not done, the court will notice the omission and dismiss the suit. In courts of general jurisdiction, such as the circuit courts, the defendant, seeking to deprive the plaintiff of his right to resort to that tribunal, is put to his plea, denying the jurisdiction of the court, or affirming the disability of the plaintiff.
    But I rely with confidence upon the other point, which is, that even if this objection could be considered of upon motion, the residence or citizenship of the plaintiffs need not be averred in the affidavit, bond, or any other of the proceedings.
    The objection that allowing citizens of other states to sue each other here, would convert our courts into an arena for the settlement of disputes in which we have no interest, seems to be met by the compliment which such appeals pay to the integrity of our judges and the equity of our laws.
    Citizens of other states, when in Mississippi, (and they must be here to give bond and make affidavit necessary to procure an attachment), may appeal to our courts for the protection and enforcement of their rights. They have the same rights, and are so far invested with citizenship.
    Courts, so far as I am aware, have never entertained any inquiry as to the citizenship of the parties, except in the cases before mentioned. The very novelty of the position is against its application to the present case.
    I ask attention to the authorities cited, and to the statute regulating the proceeding by attachment. See Lindner v. Aaron & Nelson, 5 Howard, 585; Bloomfield v. Hancock, 1 Yerger, 101.
    
      Guión and Prentiss, for appellee.
    Two points are presented in the record, one in relation to the sufficiency of the affidavit, the other of the bond. Both are defective.
    The affidavit does note state the citizenship or residence of the plaintiff, in the attachment. This was necessary to give jurisdiction. Only a resident can sue out such attachment. The process by attachment is a special limited mode of proceeding, in derogation of the general law ; and the proceedings must show upon their face, that the case came within the provision of the law. Howard & Hutchinson, 550.
    The bond is bad. The condition is not in accordance with the statute. The statute requires that the bond shall be “ conditioned for satisfying all costs which shall be awarded to such defendant, in case the plaintiff suing out the attachment therein-mentioned, shall be cast in the suit, and also all damages, which shall be recovered against the plaintiff, for wrongfully suing out such attachment.” How. & Hutch. 549.
    Now the bond in this case is only conditioned that plaintiff “shall well and truly pay and satisfy all such costs and damages, as shall be awarded against the said Roe, &c. in any suit or suits which may be hereafter brought for wrongfully suing out such attachment.” The bond does not provide for the payment of the cost in case the plaintiff is cast in the attachment.
   Mr. Justice Thachee

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes up by appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Warren county.

An attachment was sued out by Amos & Roe against Edward R. J. Allnutt, an inhabitant- of the state of Louisiana. Upon motion in the court below, the proceedings were quashed on the ground that the affidavit and bond were insufficient, and that it did not appear that the plaintiffs were entitled to their remedy by attachment.

The brief of the appellee claims as an error in the affidavit, that it does not set forth the citizenship or residence of the plaintiffs in the attachment. This point has already met the adjudication of this court, and it has been held in Lindner v. Aaron & Nelson, 5 How. 581, that the fact of the citizenship of the party plaintiff is not one that need appear upon the record. If the fact were not so, a defence should be made by plea, and not by the suggestion of counsel, that the proceeding is coram non judice.

The second objection of appellee goes to the sufficiency of the bond, in that its condition is not to satisfy the costs of the attachment suit in the event the plaintiff should fail in his action. This point has likewise been set at rest by this court in the case of M'Intyre v. White, 5 How. 298. The form of the bond, as laid down in the statute, H. & H. 551, sec. 19, was strictly followed in the case before us, and that form has been decided, in the case just quoted, to be all-sufficient. Upon such a bond, a defendant could recover his costs awarded upon the failure of a plaintiff to prosecute his suit with success. It was not only correct but necessary to pursue the form given by the statute.

The judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the cause remanded.  