Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 355

                                
1884.]           LEwmI & BAKER V . STEWART.               355
Opinion of the court.
exacted strictness in attachment proceedings only so far as to require
a substantial compliance with the material provisions of the
law. Dunnenbaum    v. Schram, 59 Tex., 281; Espey v. Heidenheimer
& Bro., 58 Tex., 662.
The object of the statute is to enable a plaintiff to secure his debt
by a seizure of the defendant's property before judgment. The
debtor is.protected against an illegal use of the writ of attachment
by requiring the plaintiff or those representing him to make such an
oath as will subject the affiant to an indictment for perjury if it be
false in any respect. The defendant is indemnified against loss by
the bond which must be given before the writ can issue. The afti.
davits in this case are positive in their terms, and the party taking
either is liable to an indictment for perjury if the facts to which he
swears or any of them are not true. The appellee, therefore, is as
fully protected against false swearing of the attorneys of the appellant
as if the entire facts were sworn to by only one of them.
But the statute is as much for the benefit of the plaintiff in giving
him the writ in a proper case as it is for the protection of the defendant
against its use in an improper one. Yet in a large number
of cases the practical result of requiring one person to swear to all
facts necessary to procure the writ would be to deny it altogether,
though the plaintiff might be fully entitled to its benefits. It seldom
happens that one person knows of his own knowledge all the facts
required in the affidavit. Hence if required to state them, he could
do so only upon information and belief. But this court has held this
insufficient, and requires that the party making the affidavit shall
state facts from his positive knowledge and not from the information
of others. Sydnor v. Totham, 6 Tex., 189. Unless, therefore,
each fact can be sworn to by the agent who knows it, the plaintiff
cannot obtain the writ in such cases though clearly entitled to it.
To require every fact to be supported by the affidavit of the same
person is to encourage positive swearing to facts not within knowledge
of the afflant, and to withdraw in a measure the protection
which is afforded defendants against illegal and unjust attachments.
But the Revised Statutes themselves settle the point made, that the
affidavit must be made by a single agent or attorney of the plaintiff.
It is provided in art. 3138 that the singular number shall include
the plural unless otherwise provided. If we can use the plural
attorneys" for the singular " attorney" whenever necessary to
effect the object of the statute and promote justice, there will be no
difficulty in upholding affidavits such as the present, made by two
attorneys, which together fulfil the requirements of the law.