
    STOWERS vs. CARTER.
    An agent or altorney-at-laiv seeking to take out an attachment must swear positively to the ground of attachment. As to the amount of indebtedness, he may depose to the best of his knowledge and belief.
    Attachment, in Hart Superior Court. Decision by Judge Thomas, at January adjourned Term, 1859.
    Erancis G-. Stowers sued out an attachment against James M. Carter, returnable to' Hart Superior Court. At the trial term, defendant moved to dismiss the attachment, because in the affidavit, which was made by the attorney of plaintiff, the ground of attachment was sworn to “ according to the best of the knowledge and belief ’’ of the deponent.
    The following is a copy of the affidavit:
    
      State of Georgia, | Erancis G. Stowers, by bis attorOoonty of Hart, j ney, Henry Cleveland, comes before me and says, cm oath, that James M. Carter, of said countjq is indebted to him the sum of tweuty-oight hundred dollars, and that James M. Carter is causing his property to be removed without the limits of this State, according to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    PI. Cleveland, for E. G. Stowers.
    Interlined before signing. j
    The court sustained the motion- and dismissed the attachment, which decision is assigned as error.
    Hester & Akerman, for plaintiff in error.
    Delony, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

Was the affidavit in this case sufficient to sustain the attachment ?

The act of 1856 (Pamphlet, p. 25,) provides that process of attachment may issue when the debtor is causing 'his property to be removed beyond the limits of the State, if the party seeking the attachment, his agent or attornoy-at-law shall make oath before a proper officer that the debtor has placed himself in the above position; and also swear to the amount of the debt claimed to be due. The statute further declares, that when the affidavit is made by the attorney-at-law or agent of the party, he may swear that the amount claimed tobe due is due according to the best of his knowledge and belief.

Several conclusions are to be drawn from the terms of this law. Eirst, that prior to its passage a positive oath was required of th.Q-party, both as to the amount of indebtedaess and tbe ground of attachment; secondly, that the relaxation is made only in behalf of agents and attorneys who depose; and thirdly, that the relaxation extends only to the indebtedness and not to the ground of attachment. This being so, and we see no way to escape these conclusions, it follows, of course, that the court was right in dismisssing the attachment.

Judgment affirmed.  