
    COMLY v. GOLDSMITH.
    September 11, 1837.
    
      Rule to show cause of action, and why defendant should not he discharged on common bail.
    
    An affidavit that defendant is justly and truly indebted to the plaintiff, in a sum of money, without stating the contract, or the nature of the indebtedness, is not sufficient to hold to bail.
    
      CAPIAS ad respondendum to September term, 1837, No. 455. Plaintiff’s affidavit, on this rule to show cause, was in the following words, víz:
    “ Samuel Comly, the plaintiff, being duly affirmed, doth depose and say, that Samuel Goldsmith is indebted to him in the sum of 9379 dollars and 81 cents; deponent further saith, that said Samuel Goldsmith is a seafaring man; that he has just returned from a voyage in which he has been absent from the United States for many months; that to the best of deponent’s knowledge and belief, said defendant intends to quit this commonwealth, and will depart the jurisdiction of this court, unless held to bail, without leaving sufficient real or personal estate therein to satisfy the demand in this action.”
    
      Heiskell, for rule.
    
      Brashears, contra.
   Per Curiam.—

This affidavit is altogether insufficient. The nature of the indebtedness is not stated, or the contract or transaction on which it is founded.

Rule absolute. 
      
      
        Vide Kelly v. Kintzing; Benedict v. Whartenby; McCanles v. Frederickson and Young v. Corder, in this volume, and the index.
     