
    B. Reily vs. Thomas Middleton. E. C. Ruff & Co. vs. Same. Wm. O’Connor vs. Same. Wm. Welch vs. Same.
    Eoreign Attachment.
    Domestic Attachment.
    Do. Do.
    Do. Do.
    Books of account cannot be attacked under domestic attachment.
    BEFORE GANTT, J., AT NEWBURY, FALL TERM, 1837.
    These cases were brought before his Honor, on a motion by the plaintiff in the foreign attachment, (B. Reily,) to have the books of account of the absent debtor delivered over to him, upon bis entering into the recognizance required by law.
    The domestic attachments bad been taken out, and the person in whose bands the books of account were, bad been garnisheed; the foreign attachment was then taken out, and the same person was again garnisheed.
    On the motion, objections were made to the form and substance of the domestic attachments. His Honor decided that they were substantially correct — that they were entitled to the books of account; and overruled the motion of the plaintiff in foreign attachment.
    The plaintiff, B. Reily, appealed, and moved to reverse the decision of the presiding judge, ón the following grounds, viz:
    1st. Because the plaintiffs in the domestic attachments cannot attach the books of account of the absent debtor, in the bands of a garnishee.
    2d. Because B. Reily, the plaintiff in the foreign attachment, is entitled to the books of account of the absent debtor — and they ought to have been delivered to him, on bis entry into the recognizance required by law.
    3d. Because the domestic attachments were defective in substance.
    
      Caldwell & Caldwell, for the motion.
    
      Heller & Summer, contra.
   Curia, per Evans, J.

It is clear the domestic attachment Act of 1785, does not authorize the attaching of books of account. Independently of what would seem to be the. meaning of that Act, the question was expressly decided in Ohors vs. Hill, 3 McC., 338. The plaintiff in the first case above stated, issued a foreign attachment, under which the books of account of the absent debtor might be seized. He is entitled to have them delivered to him that be may collect the debts due to, the absent debtor. The decision of the circuit judge in refusing an order to that effect, was erroneous —and the motion is granted.  