Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: uniformity of authorization in cases of tort to such extent as in case of debt upon contract express or implied. The cases are numerous in which courts have held that attachment could not be maintained for torts, offences, quasi offences and the like, for want of statute authorization.1 Obviously, the statute governs in all cases, whether upon contract or tort; but the pleader needs to be more cautious when the latter is the cause of action, since the authorization of attachment therein is less general. When a statute expressly authorizes attachment for injuries, except for libel, slander, assault and battery, false imprisonment, seduction and breach of promise to marry, (classing the last among the wrongs or offences previously named,) it may be inferred that attachment will lie for any tort not thus exeepted. In such cases, the petition must aver a certain sum due, though it is for the jury to assess the damages. There is really no debt certain, but the certainty of the allegation suffices for all the purposes of granting the writ, fixing the amount of the bond, and determining how much property may be lawfully attached. The injury or wrongful conversion of personal property is such a cause of action as to warrant resort to attachment, in some of the States; and the remedy is employed in one State when the suit is founded on the penal laws. 1 Piscataqua Bank . Turnley, 1 Brayton, (Vt.) 234; Emerson . Miles. 312; Jacoby . Gogell, 5 Serg. Paine, 9 Vt . 271: Bradley . Cooper, tR. 450; Porter . Hildebrand, 14 8 Vt. 121; Hill . Whitney, 16 Vt. Pa.St.l20; Thompson . Carper, 11 461; Stanley v. Oden, 2 Root, (Ct.) Humphreys, 542; Fellows . Brown, 259; Maxwell v. McBrayer, Phillips, K Miss. 541; McDonald . Forsyth, (N. C.)527; Minza r. Zollicoffer, 1 13 Miss. 5... --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.