
    John Kurtz v. Dennis Jones.
    In the affidavit and warrant for attachment under the Act of Maryland of 1795, c. 56, it is not necessary to state the plaintiff to he a citizen of the United States or of any of the States.
    
      Mr. Key was allowed by the Court to appear for the defendant, and moved to quash the attachment, because it did not appear in the warrant of the magistrate ordering the attachment, nor any where else in the affidavit or proceedings that the plaintiff was a citizen of the District of Columbia, or of the United States, or of 'any State of the United States.
    
      Mr. Marbwry, for the plaintiff,
    contended that it was not necessary that it should appear in any of the preliminary proceedings, but that it wras sufficient if he now proved it, upon the motion for judgment of condemnation of the attached -effects; and he now offered evidence that the plaintiff was at the time of his application for the attachment and still is a citizen of the District of Columbia. Campbell v. Morris, 3 Harris & McHenry, 553. This objection was expressly overruled by this Court in Birch cf Small v. Butler, in June, 1806, (1 Cranch, C. C. 319.)
    The Act, in describing the matter of the oath which the plaintiff is to make in order to obtain an attachment, does not require that he shall make oath that he is “ a citizen of the Slate of Maryland or of any other of the United States,” although he must, in fact, be such a citizen; and it may now be proved.
    
      Mr. Key, in reply.
    The principle upon which this Court yesterday quashed the scire facias, because the recognizance contained only one person as bail, was, that all special authorities must be strictly pursued. The proceedings must, upon their face, show every thing necessary to sustain the jurisdiction. The justice had no authority to grant a warrant for attachment to any but a citizen. His authority should be manifest upon the face of his warrant or the affidavit of the plaintiff annexed to it. Smith v. Middleton, at April term, 1821, [ante, 233,] and Mandeville v. Love, at October term, 1821, [ante, 241] ; Wise v. Withers, S Cranch, 331; Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dali. 382; and Abercoombie v. Dupuis, 1 Cranch, 343.
   The CouRT

([nem. con.) permitted evidence now to be given that the plaintiff was a citizen of the District of Columbia ; and said that the point was decided by this Court in 1806, and as that decision has been acquiesced in and practised upon ever since; and as there is a superior tribunal who can correct the error, if it be one, this Court will not now overrule its former decision.

Judgment of condemnation.

A bill of exceptions was taken by the defendant’s counsel; but no writ of error was prosecuted.

The debt was $769.88.  