The remedy by attachment is allowed in general only to a creditor. In some states, under special statutory provisions, damages arising ex delicto may be sued for by attach ment ; but the almost universal rule is oth erwise. The claim of an attaching creditor, however, need not be so certain as to fall within the technical definition of a debt, or as to be susceptible of liquidation without the intervention of a jury. It is sufficient if the demand arise on contract, and that the con tract furnish a standard by which the amount due could be so clearly ascertained as to enable the plaintiff to aver it in his affidavit, or the jury by their verdict to find it; Van Winkle v. Ketcham, 3 Cai. (N. Y.) 323 ; Fisher v. Consequa, 2 Wash. C. C. 382, Fed. Cas. No. 4,816 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 8 Gill (Md.) 192, 50 Am. Dec. 685 ; Weaver v. Puryear, 11 Ala. 941; Jones v. Buzzard, 2 Ark. 415; Templin v. Krahn, 3 Ind. 374; Roelofson v. Hatch, 3 Mich. 277.
Some of the causes of action in tort upon -which, in the absence of a statute, attach ments have not been permitted are: Troyer ; Hynson v. Taylor, 3 Ark. 552 ; breach of promise of marriage; Phillips 527 ; a steam boat collision ; Griswold v. Sharpe, 2 Cal. 17 ; trespass ; Ferris v. Ferris, 25 Vt. 100 ; assault and battery ; Thompson v. Carper, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 542 ; Minga v. Zollicoffer, 23 N. C. 278 ; loss of profits resulting from the failure of the defendant to dispose prop erly of a return cargo ; Warwick v. Chase, 23 Md. 154 ; malicious prosecution ; Tarbell iv. Bradley, 27 Vt. 535; Stanly v. Ogden, 2 Root (Conn.) 259 ; damage for loss of prop. erty by a common carrier declared on in tort; Piscataqua Bank v. Turnley, 1 Miles (Pa.) 312; money embezzled and lost in gambling; Babcock v. Briggs, 52 Cal. 502 ; misbehavior in office, where there was no bond and the action is in tort ; Dunlop v. Keith, 1 Leigh (Va.) 430, 19 Am. Dec. 755 ; expense and loss of time caused by a wound inflicted by defendant ; Prewitt v. Carmichael, 2 La. Ann. 943 ; breaking open a letter entrusted to the care of defendant ; Raver v. Webster, 3 Ia. 502, 66 Am. Dec. 96 ; slander; Bar geant v. Helmbold, Harper (S. C.) 219; Baum v. Thomassin, 6 Mart. N. S. (La.) 563; de. struction by fire of plaintiff's property caus ed by the negligence of the defendant; Han dy v. Brong, 4 Neb. 60. If the plaintiff al leged a cause of action on a contract and it appears from the pleadings or the evidence not to be such, it should be dismissed; El liott v. Jackson, 3 Wis. 649.
In some states an attachment may, under peculiar circumstances, issue upon a debt not yet due and payable; but in such cases the debt must possess an actual character to be come due in futuro, and not be merely pos sible and dependent on econtingency, which may never happen ; Smead v. Chrisfield, 1
Handy (Ohio) 442. An attachment can be sued out in equity against an absconding debtor by the accommodation maker of a negotiable note not yet due ; Altmeyer v. Caulfield, 37 W. Va. '847, 17 S. E. 409.
Corporations, like natural persons, may be proceeded against by attachment; Libbey v. Hodgdon, 9 N. H. 394 ; Bushel v. Ins. Co., 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 173 ; Bank of United States v. Bank, 1 Rob. (Va.) 573 ; Wilson v. Danforth, 47 Ga. 676 ; • St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 9 Mo. 421; Planters' & Merchants' Bank of Mobile v. Andrews, 8 Porter (Ala.) 404 ; Mineral Point R. Co. v. Keep, 22 111, 9, 74 Am. Dec. 124. It will lie against a cor poration for the conversion of its own stock; Condouris v. Cigarette Co., 3 Misc. 66, 22 N. Y. Supp. 695.
Representative persons, such as heirs, ex ecutors, administrators, trustees, and others, claiming merely by right of representation, are not liable to be proceeded against, as such, by attachment ; Jackson v. Walsworth, 1 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 372 ; Peacock v. Wildes, 8 N. J. Law 179 ; McCoombe v. Dunch, 2 Dall. (U. S.) 73, 1 L. Ed. 294 ; Taliaferro V. Lane, 23 Ala. 369 ; Patterson v. McLaughlin, 1 Cra. 352, Fed. Cas. No. 10,828 ; Metcalf v. Clark, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 45 ; Smith v. Riley, 32 Ga. 356 ; Levy v. Succession of Lehman, 38 La. Ann. 9 ; Bryant v. Fussel, 11 R. I.286• Goods in the hands of a common carrier are not exempt from attachment, and, when it is pending, the carrier is not justified in giving them up to the consignor, as the right of the officer to hold them is to be determined by the court out of which the attachment IS' sued ; Stiles v. Davis, 1 Black (U. S.) 101, 17 L. Ed. 33 ; but goods in transit to another state cannot be attached, whether without the state, when the seizure was made (the carriers being within the jurisdiction) ; Bates v. R. Co., 60 Wis. 296, 19 N. W. 72, 50 Am. Rep. 369 ; Western R. R. v. Thornton, 60 Ga. 300; Sutherland v. Bank, 78 Ky. 250 ; Ste venot v. R. Co., 61 Minn. 104, 63 N. W. 256, 28 L. R. A. 600 ; or still within the state, and not moved from the starting point, but load ed for movement ; Baldwin v. R. Co., 81 Minn. 247, 83 N. W. 986, 51 L. R. A. 640, 83 Am. St. Rep. 370. Obedience to attachment process does not deprive the carrier of his right to his charges for services to the ship per, and he may retain possession of the goods until the charges are paid ; Rucker v. Donovan, 13 Kan. 251, 19 Am. Rep. 84 ; Wolfe v. Crawford, 54 Miss. 514.