Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/519

 THIRD NAT, BANK OF BALTIMOEB V. TEAL. 607 �fore, sustain thë demurrer to the declaration for -want of proper averments showing the plaintifE's right to sue in this court. �Objection is also made that the declaration does not allege that the plaintif is a corporation. On this point of plead» ing we are not at liberty to look at the bond, but must côn- sider the declaration itself. �The fact of the incorporation of the plaintiff is certainly a faet essential to the plaintiff's case, and necessary to be proved, and one which the defendant is entitled to deny and put in issue; and we think that a declaration which omits this averment, while it would be cured by verdict, must be held bad on demurrer. These defects in the declaration can, of course, be amended, and it only remains for us to consider the motion to quash, and how the amendment affects the attachment. The attachment is a remedy given to the plain- tiff by the laws of the state of Maryland. This court was authorized, by the United States Revised Statutes, to ' adopt the state law providing this remedy, but we must adopt the law as we find it, and as its scope, meaning, and application, and the practice under it, has been settlôd by the Maryland court of appeals. This is a local law, and if we find that the Maryland court has determined the effect of such an amend- ment on 4 proceeding based on that law, we are to be gov- emed by that decision, especially as the right to amend in ail ordinary actions iff njuite as liberal under the Maryla-nd laws and practioe as under the United States' Eevisedi Stat- utes. :*,/-: �We find that the Maryland court of appeals has repeatedly held that this statutory remedy by attachment is in aU respects strictissimi juris, and that for any defect apparent in the pro- ceedings the attachment m^y be qpmshed. upon suggestion to the court of smoh defect by any one'haVing an intereat in the property attached. To this doctrine the practice in- the state courts has constantly. ' coniormed. Hinckley & Mayetcon Attaehments, § 305; Weaver v. B(tltzell,:& G.i& J. 339, �i This question of the eflfect on an attachment of a necesBary amendment to the declaration hais beea,i we think, passed ����