Marshall & Hosmer, When the service will be bound to follow the latter. and Almy & Walcott, above cited. of a writ is defective, or insufficient, by reason of a mistake on the part of the officer or of the plaintiff, as to the place where, or the person with whom, the summons or a copy of the summons ought to have been left, the Court may order a new summons or notice to be issued and served, c. 90, § 53. Whenever an officer has received special instructions either to attach property, or arrest the body, inasmuch as he may expose himself to an action for damages, by making a mistake as to the person, or by seizing goods not the property of the debtor, he may require the plaintiff to point out the person or the property, and demand a bond of indemnity or other security to indemnify himself against the consequences of a mistake. Bond v. Ward, 7 M. R. 123; Marsh v. Gold, 2 Pick. 285. He may require specific directions, and an indemnity, in all cases of doubt or difficulty. Richards v. Gilmore, 11 N. H. 493. 1. Mode of Service. - Upon quasi corporations, such as counties, towns, cities, parishes, religious societies, school districts, &c., service is made by leaving an attested copy of the summons with one of the county commissioners, or with the clerk of the town or parish, &c., and also another copy with one of the selectmen, assessors or standing committee, &c. Against other corporations, the service may be made by leaving the original or a copy of the summons with the clerk, cashier, secretary, agent, or other person having charge of the business, and if there be none, with any member of the corporation. Rev. Stat. c. 90, § 42, 43. - 2. On absent Defendants. If a person has never been an inhabitant of the State, no action can be maintained against him, unless a valid attachment of his property within the State be made; in such case, if the fact appear, the Court will stay proceedings. Rev. Stat. c. 90, § 44; Lawrence v. Smith, 5 M. R. 362; Gardner v. Barber, 12 lb. 36; Jacobs v. Mellen, 14 Ib. 132; where certain persons summoned as trustees were discharged, and there being no other attachment, proceedings were stayed. But where there is property of such a person within this State, that may be attached, either real or personal, or in the hands of trustees; or where a person has once been an inhabitant of this State, and has such attachable property here, such property may be attached, and the mode of service is particularly prescribed by Rev. Stat. c. 90, § 45. If one have property here, it is to be presumed that it is in the care or keeping of some one, and it is therefore required that the summons shall be served by leaving the original summons or a copy, as the case may be, with his tenant, agent or attorney; and if there be none, the facts are to be certified, and notice is to be given as hereinafter specified. If one has been an inhabitant of the Commonwealth, he must have had, at some time, a place of abode, and it is accordingly required that in such case, the summons or copy, shall be left at his last and usual place of abode, c. 90, § 45; Wright v. Oakly, 5 Met. 400. In all cases, when the defendant is out of the State at the time of the service, he is entitled to further notice of the suit, (c. 90, § 48); and for this purpose the action is to be continued, from term to term, until notice of the suit is given in such manner as the Court may order, c. 92, § 3. The cases in which such defendant will be allowed to review the judgment, will be considered, when we come to treat of writs of review. The plaintiff is required to give bond before taking out execution, if the defendant is defaulted, c. 92, § 6. If the absent defendant is sued with others on a joint contract, and has no agent, tenant or attorney, service may be made by leaving a summons with one of the co-defendants; but notice must be given by order of the Court, as above stated, (c. 90, § 46,) and so in cases of tort, c. 92. 10. The writ may proceed, however, against those who have been served with process, in the same manner as if the absent person were not joined in the suit, c. 92, § 11, 12. If a plaintiff, not being an inhabitant of the State, sue an action here, and a cross action be brought against him by the defendant, or by one or more of several defendants, the latter may be served on the attorney in the original suit, c. 90, § 50. Foreign corporations, having property here, may be sued like other defendants, (Stat. 1839, c. 158,) repealing the decision in 16 Pick. 286. Foreign corporations can also be sued in New Hampshire. Libbey v. Hodgdon, 9 N. H. 394. The property of a foreign corporation may be attached by the trustee process. Ocean Ins. Co. v. Portsmouth & Marine Railway Co. 3 Met. 420. But they are not liable to the trustee process unless they have property here, though many of its officers and members may reside here. Danforth v. Penny, 3 Met. 564. When a writ has been properly served, it is strictly the duty of an officer to return it to the clerk's office of the county, where it is made returnable, and this is the practice in the county of Suffolk; but in the country, the practice is attended with so great inconve nience, that it is usual to return it to the office of the attorney, by whom it was issued, or to the person from whom it was received. The officer's return should be indorsed upon the writ, and be signed by him, and should set forth the whole of his doings. He may execute all writs in his hands at the time of his removal from office, c. 14, § 70. He should also state the amount of his fees, and if he claim extra compensation, a bill of particulars of the expenses, together with his affidavit, that such expenses were actually incurred, and that the charges are reasonable, is necessary. If a bail bond have been taken, it must be returned with the writ. When personal property has been sold on mesne process, the return should set forth all his proceedings. Where he returns an attachment of goods without fixing their value, the presumption is, that they were of the value commanded to be attached. Childs v. Ham, 23 Maine, 74. In case of the death of a deputy sheriff before he has completed his return, it may be completed by the sheriff. Ingersoll v. Sawyer, 2 Pick. 276. 10* CHAPTER IX. ATTACHMENT. THE practice of attaching property upon a writ is a great innovation upon the common law, but it is now firmly established in Massachusetts, and the day is probably very distant when it will be abandoned. It has been so regulated by the Revised Statutes, that it has been deprived of its most offensive features. It is the most common and effectual means of securing a debt, and in other cases, it enables a party to obtain certain kinds of property as a security that the judgment recovered shall be satisfied. The effect of an attachment, upon a writ, was fully considered by the Supreme Court in Davenport v. Tilton, 10 Met. 320; Foster's case, 2 Story, 131; Case of Bellows & Peck, 3 Ib. 428; Kittredge v. Warren, and Kittredge v. Emerson, 7 Law Reporter, 77; in which last cases elaborate opinions of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire were reported. It was held, in this Commonwealth, that an attachment of property on mesne process is a security or lien on property, and that it could not be impaired or destroyed by anything contained in the bankrupt law of the United States. Both an attachment and arrest cannot be made on the same writ; and the one last made will be void. Brinley v. Allen, 3 M. R. 561; Almy v. Walcott, 13 Ib. 73. Where an officer has already served one writ, by attaching property, and another writ is put into his hands, with directions to attach particular property |