
    LE BARON v. JAMES.
    1. The 8th section of the attachment act of 1837, does not warrant the suing out of an ancillary attachment in an action of detinue. This process is authorized in such actions only as can be commenced by original attachment.
    A motion is submitted by the plaintiff for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, requiring the Circuit Court of Clarke County, to reinstate an ancillary attachment in the above entitled case, which was quashed at the last term.
    The action is detinue to recover certain slaves and was commenced by capias. Afterwards the ancillary process was sued out on the affidavit of the plaintiff, setting out one of the rea* sons required by the Sth section of the act of 1837.
    
      Peck for the motion.
    Blount contra.
   GOLDTHWAITE, ,T.

It is evident from an examination of the statutes authorizing the process of attachment, that it was intended to be given only in cases of money demands, and even with respect to these it deserves consideration whether-the process is not confined to those which are of a liquidated nature, or capable of precise ascertainment. It is true, when the ancillary attachment is given by the 8th section of the act of 1837, very general terms are used; but these are controlled by subsequent expressions, showing very clearly that the ancillary process is warranted only in those actions which could b,e commenced by original attachment.

Motion denied.  