THIRD NAT. BANK Oy BALTIMOEB V. TEAL 6|>^ �any defect in the statement in the short note of the names of the parties to the suit, such reference might also be had for the purpose of supplying any omission or correcting any mis- statement of the cause of action, which this court has said, in the case of Dean v. Opperiheimer, canaot be done." ' �These decisions of the court of appeals ojE Maryland we take tobe conclusive as to the efEect of an amendment ta the declaration in an attachmeut case tinder the Maryland- stat- ute, and binding upon us in applying that st'atute to proceed- ings in this court. Our attention has been called to Neptune Ins. Co. V. Mantell, 8 Gill. 228, and Norris v. Graham, 33 Md. 56, two cases in which it ie claimed that the court did piot quash the attachment, a,lthough the declaratioris were amended. In the latter case no motion to quash the attach- ment appears to have been made; the defendant appeared and pleaded to the declaration. The controversy appears to have been entirely whether he was liable at ail to the plain- tiffs, and not as to the validity of the attachment ; and, aB it appeared that by ameuding his declaration the plaiutiff might obtaifi a personal judgment against the defendant, a new trial was awarded, but the fate of the attachment doea not appear. �In the case oi Neptune Ins. Co. v. ManteU, decided in 184;§!, it would seem that by eenditg the case back for a new tiiftl against the garnishee, after amendment to the declaration, the court did sustain the attachment ; but the precise point does not appear to have been either argued by counsel or passed upon by the court of appeals, and in the two very recent decisions of that court, to which we have above re^ ferred, it does appear that the precise point was expressly ruled to the contrary. �It follows that the demurrer must be sustained, with leave to the plaintifi to amend the declaration, and the attachment must be quashed. �BoMD, G. J., couciured. ����
