
    Mandeville vs. Jarrett, Garn. of Griffith.
    A.n affidavit fbi“ an iittaehine.it under t ie act of 1795, ch 5o, mu.>t state that tlu» plain* iá? is a citizen of this state, or of' some other <•/ the United States'* and on the piea of non assumpsit, the fact, of such citizenship must bo proveí/-
    Appeal from Harford .county court. The affidavit oil which the attachment in this casa was issued under the act of 1795, ch. 5G, stated, that the plaintiff, (now appellant,) a citizen of this state, made oath, &c. that Camillus Griffith, not a citizen of this slate, and not residing therein, was bona file indebted to him, &c. The attachment being laid in the hands of Jarrell, (the appellee,) as garnishee, he appeared and pleaded non assumpsit by Griffith, and Nulla Ilona. At the trial, the plaintiff read -in evidence the papers filed ill the cause, and proved that Camillus Griffith had acknowledged that he owed to the plaintiff the amount stated in the attachment. He also read in evidence the docket entries of a judgment rendered in Harford county court in March 1812, in favour of Camillus Griffith against Jar reft, (the appellee,) for 88G0, with interest from the 3d of February 1810, and costs, and that an injunction from the court of chancery had been filed therein on the 24th of February 1814. lie also read in evidence the interrogate* vies exhibited by the plaintiff to the garnishee, and the garnishee’s answers thereto, slating that he owed no money to Griffith, and had no property of his in his hands; that. Griffith claimed a balance due from him for land sold him in Kentucky, in which sale Griffith practised a fraud oh him. by selling him land to which he had no title; and that for the purpose of obtaining justice of Griffith, lie had filed a bill in the court of chancery far redress, which suit was then depending. To that bill he referred for his reasons For not owing Griffith any money. The plaintiff also read iu evidence a letter from Jarrelt to Griffith, dated the 2d of February 1819, stating that he had obtained an injunction, &c. That he was entitled to a deduction from the judgment of 8630, which would leave a balancte due Griffith of only 8284 44, interest included. He proposed, by way of compromise, to deliver to Griffith’s agent in Haiti* more, by the 15th of June, following, 150 barrels of No.! Herrings» equal in value to 8800; the suits to be struck off) and eacli party to pay their own costs in chancery, &c. The defendant then moved the court to direct the jury, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Which direction the court, [Dorsey, Ch. J. and Hanson, A. J.j gaye. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against' him; He appealed to this court.
    The casé was argued before Buchanan, CJli J. Martin; Stephen, and Archer,• J.
    
      Speed,.Jor the Appellant,
    contended, 1: That an attach» inent might be laid to attach a debt id litigation. He referred to Serg. Law of Attach. 69, 70, 72. 5 Jacob’s L. D. 490; and Bull. N. P. 53.
    2. That judgmérit of condemnation should.at least have been rendered- for the amount confessed iri the appellee’s letter to be due to Griffith, (viz. $284 44,) arid not contest-rid in the injunction bill.
    
      Jlíagruder and R. Johnson for the Appellee,
    Stated, that although it was- set out in the plaintiff’s affidavit that he was á citizeri of this state at the time of issuing the attachment, that fact should have been proved at the trial under the plea of non assumpsit. They cited Shivers vs. Wilson, 5 Harr. and Johns. 130.
   Buchanan, Ch. J.

The' court affirm the judgment on the authority of Shivers vs. Wilson, there being1 no proof in the record that the plaintiff was a citizeri of this state,- of iff any of the United States: judgment Affirmed.  