Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/515

 THIRD NAT. BANK 0» BAliTIMORE V. TEAL. 503 �other car, if, because of the smoking or baB ventilation or ■other causes, it was disagreeable to her, there being room for her in the ladies' car. ■Verdict forplaintiff for $3,000. Note. See Brovm v. Memphis A G. B. Co. 4 Fed. Rep. 37. ���Third Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. Teal. {Gvrcuit Court, li. Maryland. January 28, 1881.) �1. Declabation— JuRisDicTioNAii Facts— Demubkbr. �The declaration described the plaintifE as "The Third National Bank of Baltimore." Hdd, on demurrer, that this was not equiv- alent to an {iverment that the plalntiH was a banking association established in the district of Maryland, nor that it was established under thelawof the United States providing for national banking associationa. ; Held, also, that the declaration waa demurrabla for want of an averment that the plaintifE was a corporation. �2. Attachment under State Law Adopted by the United States, �Courts. �The plaintifl having obtained an attachment on original process,'aa provlded by the Maryland state law, adopted by circuit Conrtei as au- thorized by section 915 of the U. S. Revised Statutes, hdd, that the cir- cuit court must apply the remedy agreeably to the construction put upon the law by the highest appellate court of the state. Eeld, that, the appellate court having decided that, by the terms of the statute giving the remedy, the attachment was void if the declaration was demurrable, the attachment in this case must be quashed. �Demurrer to declaration and motion to quash attachment. �T. M. Lanahan and A. Sterling, Jr., for plaintiff. �Robert D. Morrison and George G. Maund, for defendant. �MoERis, D. J. This court having by its' rules (as author- ized by section 915 of theU. S. Eevised Statutes,) adopted the Maryland law of 1864, c. 306, giving to plaintifEs a remedy by attachment on original proeess, the plaintiff iû this case, Tipon giving bond and filing an affidavit allegiug that it had good reason to believe that the defendant had dispôsed of Bome portion of bis property with intent to defraud his cred- itors, obtained an attachment, ■which was levied on certairi ol the defendant's real estate. ����