ounrrs v. wonrsmu. 37
mg that the attachment should not issue, he shall not grant the same.
In this particular case the judge did not give the defendant in at-
tachment an opportunity to show that the attachment was improp- V
erly applied for, but granted the attachment. The law enacts that the
attachment shall be executed as existing law provides, and the ex-
isting law provides that it is subject to traverse, replevy, demurrer,
and other defenses. The term "existing laws" means, of course, the
laws existing at the time the attachment is sued out. The defendant
did not traverse this attachment, and judgment was rendered,-a
general judgment on the attachment.! Now, the claimant is before
the court, and insiststhat the property levied on is not the property
of the defendant, but is hers. She insists, further, that it is not
subject to this attachment, and that the plaintiff must show that it is
subject as if on the original trial. When the judgment was obtained,
unless there had been a traverse filed, the plaintiff would not have
been put to the necessity of submitting his proof relative to the
grounds of attachment. I
The affidavit to the attachment is manifestly considered sufficient
proof of the grounds of attachment, unless there is a traverse filed,
and if there is a traverse, then the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
Oliver v. Wilson. 29 Ga. 642. The supreme court of Georgia have
distinctly held that after judgment on attachment the claimant can-
not traverse the grounds of attachment, and this concludes the court
upon this question. Foster v. Higginbotham, 49 Ga. 264. Besides,
‘ it is provided in section 3323 of the Code that the claim shall be
tried in the same manner, subject to the same rules and regulations,
as are prescribed in other cases for other claims. Now, in all other
cases, where property levied on is at the time of such levy in pos-
session of the defendant in execution, when the plaintiff proves that
fact the burden of proof is shifted upon the claimant. So in this
case, the defendant having failed to traverse the grounds of attach-
ment, and judgment having been rendered thereon, the claimant can-
not controvert their truth; and, the plaintiff in attachment having
shown that the property claimed was in the possession of the defend- '
ant at the time of the levy, the burden rests upon the claimant to
show title thereto, as in other claims. This remedy has to so large
an extent been substituted for the equivalent proceeding in equity,
that it is highly important to ascertain and settle in the courts of the
United States the best and most eihcient practice in its enforcement.