
    William Davis v. Uriah Wyer.
    The proceedings upon attachment, upon an assigned cause of action, must be in the name of the legal plaintiff; and all the requisites of the statute must he complied with.
    Attachment under the Act of 1795, c. 56.
    The justice certified that William Davis jnade oath that the defendant is bona fide indebted to him in the sum of $92.50, &c., according to the act, and that William Davis at the same time produced before him a memorandum of a settlement betwixt the said Uriah Wyer and Jacob Todhunter, which memorandum was assigned to the aforementioned William Davis, by which it appeared that the said Uriah Wyer is indebted as aforesaid, and upon which memorandum of a settlement, the said oath was granted.”
    The memorandum produced to the clerk was in the words following : “ December 8th, 1807, this ■— settled with Jacob Tod-hunter and am due him $92.50 as witness my hand. Uriah Wyer.” “ I do hereby assign all my right, title, claim, and interest to the above to William G. Davis. Jacob Todhunter.”
    
      Mr. F. S. Key
    
    moved (if the Court should suppose an amendment necessary,) to amend the capias ad respondendum, by striking out the name of William Davis, and inserting in lieu thereof, the name of Jacob Todhunter. The capias had been returned non est. No copy of the short note had been set up, &c. The proceeding by attachment is an equitable proceeding. It must issue in the name of the equitable plaintiff. Such has been the uniform practice in Maryland.
   The Court (nem. con.) on motion, quashed the attachment' There was no evidence that a copy of the short note had been set up at the court-house door, nor that the proofs exhibited to the •justice, were lodged with the clerk. The attachment was in the name of W. Davis, but the assignment of the account was to "W. G. Davis. The handwriting of Todhunter was not proved.

Cranch, C. J.,

said the attachment must be in the name of the legal plaintiff.  