wrongful attachment, even where the plaintiff prevails in the action. Of course this conelnsion makes the undertaking for an attachment a securitj for costs in the action where the plaintiff fails to obtain judgment therein, but it is not apparent why this resuit ought to prevent the court from giving the statiite effect aecording to its language and prob- able purpose. Indeed, this provision may be considered as a wholesome restraint upon the proceeding by attachm^at in aid of a doubtful claim. �The New York Code, § 230, provides that the undertaking for an attachment should be to the effect "that if the defend- ant recover judgment, or the attachment be set aside by the order of the court, the plaintiff will pay all costs that may be awarded to the defendant, and all damages which he may sustain by reason of the attachment/' lu other words, if the plaintiff fau in his action the parties to the undertak- ing must pay the costs thereof. The statute of Teimessee is also similar in this particular to that 6f Oregon, but I have not f ound any decision undef either it or the New York one on this question. It provides that' the sureties shall satisfy "all costs which shall be awarded to the defendant in case the plaintiff shall be cast in his suit, and also all damages which shall be recovered against the plaintiff * * * for wrongfully suing out the attachment." Drake on Attach- mentB, § 170. �The plaintiff in this action is entitled to recover the sum of $146.70, the costs and disbursements adjudged to him in the former action, and also the sum of $75, the damages sustained by his testator by reason of the attachment in said action, — in all, $221.70, — and there will be findings accord- ��� �
