
    Eaton vs. Breathett.
    It is a general rule of chancery piactice that if no relief be asked for, none can be granted. The rule is different in cases of attachment bills, filed under the act of 1836, ch. 43. The bill need only state a debt by a non-resident and the.presence of ^property, with a prayer that it be attached for the satisfaction of the debt.
    Eaton filed an attachment bill in the chancery court at Franklin, against M. Breathett, which had been levied on the property of defendant. The bill stated the existence of a debt due to complainant by defendant; that she was a non-resident and had estate within the state, and prayed that the property be attached. There was no prayer that the property be sold and the proceeds applied to the satisfaction of the debt andpio prayer for general relief. The defendant did not appear, and decree was entered for complainant, and the slaves were ordered to be sold for the satisfaction of the debt.
    A transcript of the proceedings in the case was filed with the clerk of the supreme court, and an assignment errors filed.
    
      E. M. Ewing and Read, .for complainant.
    
      James Campbell, for defendant.
    In this case there is no prayer for any relief in the bill, and this it is believed is fatal. To obtain relief in a court of equity, complainant must ask it. Story’s Equity PI. sec. 40, 41, 42, 43. ,
    The complainant prays for an attachment to issue. TMs is a prayer for process, but is no prayer for relief. Story’s Eq. PI. sec. 44.
    ■If you dispense with a prayer of the bill where will you stop? The books tell us — that in order to make a man a defendant, to a bill, you must say so, and pray process against him. Now will you dispense with this too? lb. 44. Is it not as important that the complainant should ask for relief, as that he should ask for process of spa. and more so? Yet unless process is prayed, defendant is not bound to answer.
    This is a decree obtained upon an attachment, where defendant was not served with process, where she did not appear either by herself or counsel, and where of course she can now avail herself of every informality — that she could have availed herself of in the court below, had she been in court there.
    Lord Hardwicke says: where there is no special prayer, in some cases the prayer for general relief is sufficient, &c. Is not this tantamount to saying that where there is no prayer at all, it is not sufficient. The prayer of the bill is enumerated in Story’s Eq. PI. as one of its essential parts.
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an attachment bill filed in the chancery court at Franklin, by the complainant against the defendant, under the provisions of the act of 1836, chap. 43. The bill charges that the defendant is a resident citizen of the State of Mississippi, and is indebted to the complainant by bill single in the sum of $1100; that she is the owner of a negro man named’Randal, and a tract of land of six or seven hundred acres in Williamson county, State of Tennessee, and prays for a writ of attachment against said property, and for a subpoena to answer, but nothing further. . And it is now contended that no relief against this property can be granted, because none is asked.

It is not to be denied that as a general rule of chancery * practice, no relief can be granted in chancery if none be asked; but the proceeding by this bill is not according to the usual course of chancery practice, but is under a statute making provision for a particular class of cases, the practice upon which is regulated by the statute. By the 1st section it is provided, “that when any person or persons who are non-residents of this State, have any real or personal property of either a legal or equitable nature or choses in action in. this State and such non-residents shall be indebted to any citizen of this state or any other state or states, it shall be lawful for such creditor without first having obtained a judgment at law to file a bill in chancery to have said real or personal property or choses in action and debts attached, and that it shall be the duty of the sheriff or other officer to attach and take into his possession the personal property or so much thereof as is necessary to satisfy the complainant’s claim; and to levy such attachment upon the real estate of the defendants, which said property shall be sold to satisfy said claim in the manner after directed.”

Now under this statute all that is necessary to authorize a court of chancery to grant relief, is that the bill should shew an indebtedness on the part of the defendant, that he or she is a non-resident, and has property real or personal or debts or dio-ses in action in this state, and pray that the same may be attached, which shall be accordingly done, by the order of a chancellor and the same sold by a decree of the couni» to satisfy the demand without a prayer to that eifect, because the statute specially provides that the property when attached sWll be sold for that purpose.

We are therefore of opinion that the bill is not defective in not praying for specific relief against the property, and affirm the decree of the chancellor.  