FORM No. 1031-Return of sheriff to writ of attachment. [Title of court and cause.] I executed the within writ of attachment at Phillips County, Ark., on the 29th day of March, 1867, by declaring publicly, in the presence of Cameron Biscoe, a citizen of my county, that I did attach the following-named lands as the property of the within-named defendant, William H. Trader, and Ellen Trader, his wife. (Here follows a description of the land.] Levied on by virtue of the within writ of attachment. The said William Trader and Ellen Trader, his wife, are not found in my county. Bart Y. Turner, Sheriff. FORM No. 1032-Notice of garnishment [or attachment] of moneys [etc.] owing [or belonging to defendant. Please take notice, that all moneys, goods, credits, stocks, or interests or shares in the Company, all debts due and owing from you to the defendant above-named, and all other personal property in your possession or under your control, belonging to the said defendant, is hereby garnished [or attached) by virtue of a writ of which the annexed is a true copy; and you are hereby notified not to pay over or transfer said property [debts, etc.) to any one but the undersigned sheriff. You are hereby requested to make a statement of said property. R. S., Sheriff. [Copy of writ annexed.] FORM No. 1033-Certificate by sheriff of execution of writ of attachment in garnishment proceeding. (In Carter v. Koshland, 12 Ore. 492; 8 Pac. 556.) [Endorsed upon the writ:] I hereby certify that I received the within writ of attachment on the 14th day of May, 1885, at Portland, in the county of Multnomah, 1 The return to the writ of attachment, form No. 1031, was held to be a good levy on lands, and that the same created a lien thereon from the date of the attachment, under the 7th section of the act approved March 7, 1867: Harrison v. Trader, 29 Ark. 85. in said state, by serving a garnishment upon K. B., as required by law, garnishing all debts, property, moneys, rights, dues, and credits of every nature in their hands or under their control, belonging or owing to the said L. H. Frank, to which the said K. B. made an answer; said answer being hereto attached and made a part of this M. N., Sheriff. return. FORM No. 1034-Answer of garnishee to the writ. (In Carter v. Koshland, 12 Ore. 492; 8 Pac. 556.) [Attached to the writ:] I hereby return [and answer] that I have no property in my hands at this time, nor have I any property, debts, money, dues, or credits, of any kind or nature, belonging to L. H. Frank [defendant]. [Signed] K. В. FORM No. 1035-Receipt in satisfaction of claim, and directing release of goods attached. (In Levy v. McDowell, 45 Tex. 220, 222.) [Title of court and cause.] Received of the sum of $182, in full satisfaction of claim of Ralph Levy & Co. against James McDowell; and J. B. Good, sheriff of Colorado County, will release the goods attached in the suit. R. V. Cook, Attorney for Ralph Levy & Co., plaintiff. § 432. MOTIONS AND ORDERS. FORM No. 1036-Motion to quash writ of attachment. (Special appearance.) (In Holzman v. Martinez, 2 N. Mex. 271, 282.) [Title of court and cause.] And now comes the defendant, and for the purpose of this motion, and for no other, moves the court to quash the writ of attach ment herein, for the following reasons, to wit: 1. Said writ of attachment is void on its face. 2. Said writ of attachment is returnable to an impossible day and impossible term, if to any term at all. 3. The said writ bears no teste of any court. 4. The said writ has no endorsement containing a brief statement of the cause of action thereon, as required by law. 5. Said writ is otherwise uncertain, defective, and insufficient in many other respects, as appears from the face thereof. Said motion will be based upon the papers, records, etc., in said case. [Etc.] C. D., Attorney for defendant for said purpose. FORM No. 1037-Order releasing attachment. [Title of court and cause.] , , the defendant in this action, having applied for the release of property attached therein, and an undertaking having been given in behalf of defendant in this action, as required by the court, to obtain an order for the release from attachment of the property of said defendant, attached under a writ of attachment issued in this action, and the sureties to such undertaking having justified [or no exception to the sufficiency of said sureties having been made]: , , It is therefore ordered, that the following-described property of the defendant, namely: [Here describe the same), which has been attached under writ of attachment issued herein, be and the same is hereby released from said attachment. [Date.] S. T., Judge. FORM No. 1038-Order discharging an attachment improperly or irregu larly issued. [Title of court and cause.] It appearing to the court that the writ of attachment in this action was improperly [or irregularly) issued (or both improperly and irregularly issued), for the following reasons: [Here state the same briefly:] It is therefore ordered, that said writ of attachment be and the same is hereby discharged. [Date.] FORM No. 1039-Order for the sale of attached property. [Title of court and cause.] S. T., Judge. It appearing to the satisfaction of the court from the stipulation of the attorneys of the parties to the action [or from affidavits or from evidence, as the case may be], that the property under attachment herein is of a perishable character [or that the same is likely to materially depreciate in value], and it appearing that it will be for the interest and advantage of the parties to the action if said property be sold forthwith: It is therefore ordered, that said property so attached be sold by the sheriff in whose care said property is now held, and that sale thereof be made in the manner provided by law [or, if the statute make no provision as to manner of sale, specify the manner, if desired]; and it is further ordered, that the proceeds of said sale be deposited in court to abide the judgment in this action. [Date.] S. T., Judge. FORM No. 1040-Order reviving proceedings against non-resident defendant, and continuing attachment proceeding. [Title of court and cause.] [After introductory part, briefly setting forth filing of motion and hearing thereon:] It is ordered, that plaintiff have, and he is hereby granted, leave to proceed against estate of said , the executor [or administrator) of the deceased, by the service of summons and the complaint upon him as the defendant herein; and that the proceedings by attachment stand revived and continued in the name of said exécutor as defendant. [Date.] S. T., Judge. Form of petition in an action for abuse of legal process in a civil suit, the defendant having directed the sheriff to serve the execution by a garnishment of a company for a debt due for personal earnings exempt from execution: Nix v. Goodhill, 95 Iowa 282, 63 N. W. 701, 58 Am. St. Rep. 434. § 433. ANNOTATIONS.—Attachment and garnishment. 1. Limitation upon right to attachment. 2, 3. Property subject to attachment. -Corporation stock. 4. Attachment of crops under mortgage. 5. Money lost in gambling. 6. Effect of assignment. 7. Liability upon undertaking. 8. Payee not designated in bond. -Effect of. 9. Liability of sheriff. 10, 11. Security for indebtedness.-Omission of statement. 12. Interest not required to be stated. 13. Defense of estoppel in relation to attachment proceedings. 14-16. Intervention. 17. Junior attaching creditor may intervene. 18. Texas practice as to intervention. 19. Interplea in attachment. 20, 21. Judgment against garnishee." 1. Limitation upon right to attachment.-Where a statute provides that the plaintiff may have the property of the defendant attached "in an action arising on contract for the recovery of money only, or in an action for the wrongful conversion of personal property," and further provides that "the warrant may issue upon affidavit stating that a cause of action exists against such defendant, specifying the amount of the claim and the grounds thereof," etc., it has been held that the claim must be for some definite, ascertained amount, or an amount capable of being definitely ascertained and made certain by the contract and the statement in the affidavit; and further, that the language of such statute is broad and comprehensive enough to include all actions on contract for the recovery of money only, whether the damages are liquidated or unliquidated. There would be included under this rule all claims for damages in which, from the contract and facts stated in the affidavit, the court in applying. the law can definitely determine the amount which plaintiff is entitled to recover; and it would exclude all cases where the amount of the claim can be determined by no fixed rule of law, but is to be determined entirely by the opinion of a court or jury: Coats v. Arthur, 5 S. Dak. 274, 58 N. W. 675, (Fuller, J., dissenting, and in his opinion stating that he did not consider the statute broad enough in its terms to include cases in which the facts are as stated in the affidavit). 2. Property subject to attachment.Corporation stock. An attachment may be levied upon transferred shares of stock as the property of the transferrer, unless such transfer is completed by entry on the books of the corporation: Weston v. Bear River etc. Co., 5 Cal. 186, 187-189, 63 Am. Dec. 117; Naglee v. Pacific Wharf Co. 20 Cal. 529, 533; Farmers' Nat. Gold Bank v. Wilson, 58 Cal. 600, 604; McFall v. Buckeye Grangers' Warehouse Assn., 122 Call 468, 471, 55 Pac. 253, 68 Am. St. Rep. 47 First Nat. Bank v. Hastings, 7 Colo, App. 129, 42 Pac. 691; Conway v. John, 14 Colo. 30, 33, 23 Pac. 170; Ft. Madison Lumber Co. v. Batavian Bank, 71 Iowa 270, 32 N. W. 336, 60 Am. Rep. 789; Lyndonville Nat. Bank v. Folsom, 7 N. Mex. 611, 38 Pac. 253; In re Argus Print Co., 1 N. Dak. 434, 48 N. W. 347, 26 Am. St. Rep. 639, 12 L. R. A. 781; Union Bank v. Laird, 15 U. S. (2 Wheat.) 390, 4 L. ed. 269. 3. Equity will not permit the stock to be attached as belonging to the transferrer where the transferee has been diligent in his efforts to comply with the statute, and the failure to have the entry made is due to no fault of his: Weber v. Bullock, 19 Colo. 214, 35 Рас. 183; Hastings v. First Nat. Bank, 4 Colo. App. 419, 36 Pac. 618; Colt v. Ives, 31 Conn. 25, 81 Am. Dec. 161. 4. Attachment of crops under mortgage. Attachment can not issue upon growing crops included in a chattel mortgage until payment of mortgage debt or tender thereof has been made: Wood v. Franks, 56 Cal. 217; Chittenden v. Pratt, 89 Cal. 178, 183, 26 Pac. 626. See Rudolph v. Saunders, 111 Cal. 233, 234, 43 Pac. 619. 5. Money lost in gambling, where intrusted to a clerk, can not be recovered by his principal in attachment proceedings: Babcock v. Briggs, 52 Cal. 502, 503. 6. Effect of assignment.-All that can be reached under execution or by garnishment is the right which remains in the assignor, where the assignment is made bona fide. This interest is the legal title, subject to the equitable interests of the assignee: Wheless v. Meyer etc. Co., 140 Mo. App. 572, 120 S. W. 708, 714. 7. Liability upon undertaking.-An undertaking in attachment does not render the obligors liable for remote and possible consequences, but only for the proximate consequences naturally and ordinarily resulting from effect of writs: Elder v. Kutner, 97 Cal. 490, 493, 32 Pac. 563. 8. Payee not designated in bond.-Effect of. A bond given by interveners upon an order of sale enforcing an attachment lien, which order of sale and bond were directed to the sheriff, the bond designating no payee, but naming the party for whose security the obligation was to be executed, has been upheld as good common-law bond: Eichoff v. Tidball, 61 Tex. 421, 423, (form of the bond set out in the report of the case). a 9. Liability of sheriff. It is the duty of the sheriff, when he receives instructions, to release the levy and to return |