Waples v. Derrickson , 1 Del. 134 ( 1833 )

The plff’s. counsel referred to our act of assembly requiring the deft, in an attachment to put in bail to answer any action that the plff. might bring against him; and insisted that this act controlled the English rule, if such a rule existed in the English practice. On the other side it was said that the attachment was merely a substitute for personal service with process, and the rights of bail the same as at common law.

The court directed the exoneretur to be entered.