
    Peter v. Butler.
    May, 1829.
    (Absent Brooke, P„ and Carr, J.)
    Foreign - Attachments — Claim on Contract Made Out of State,  — A claim, arising on contract of bailment made out of Virginia, against a non-resident of Virginia, is a claim for debt, for which a foreign attachment in chancery lies.
    Butler, a farmer of Jefferson county, Virginia, had deposited with Peter, a merchant of Georgetown in the district of Columbia, in a warehouse kept there by him for the storage of flour, a parcel of flour, to be kept on storage, and re-delivered on demand: but before the flour was demanded, Peter’s warehouse, with whatever flour was in it at the time, was accidentally consumed by fire. And a dispute arose between the parties, which should bear the loss? whether Peter had fairly performed the contract of bailment on his part? and whether or no he was bound, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to account to Butler for the value of the flour, which he had deposited with *him on storage? Hereupon, Butler, finding persons in Virginia indebted to Peter, proceeded by way of foreign attachment in chancery (1 Rev. Code, ch. 123, p. 474,) exhibiting his bill, in the superiour court of chancery of Winchester, against Peter, as an absent debtor, and against his debtors in Virginia as garnishees, praying a decree for the value of the flour, against Peter, and the attachment and application of the moneys due him in Virginia, to satisfy the claim. Peter, besides making strenuous defence upon the merits, objected to the jurisdiction of the court of chancery. The chancellor sustained the jurisdiction ; and, upon" the merits, decreed Butler the amount of his claim. And Peter appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued here by Heigh for the appellant, and by Wickham and Stanard for the appellee.
    The facts of the case were much controverted, and several interesting questions of law were discussed, both in the court of chancery, and here: but, in the view of this court, the cause turned wholly on the questions of fact. These the court decided against the appellant, and affirmed the decree.
    
      
      Carr, J.. did not sit, because he had decided the cause in the court of chancery.
    
    
      
       Attachment — Unliquidated Damages. — For the proposition that an attachment will lie for unliquidated damages the principal case is cited in Dunlop v. Keith. 1 Leigh 432; Zerega v. McDonald, 30 Fed. Gas. 931. The principal case is also cited in Bank of U. S. v. Merchants’ Bank of Baltimore, 1 Bob. 586. See monographic note on “Attachments” appended to Lancaster v. Wilson, 27 Gratt. 624.
    
   The only point of law involved in the decision, was the question of jurisdiction. This court concurred with the chancellor, that a claim, arising on a contract of bailment made out of Virginia, against a nonresident of Virginia, is such a claim for debt, for which the foreign attachment in chancery is a proper remedy.  