When the attachment is sued out against two or more defendants for the seizure of property owned by each of them separately or by two or more of them jointly, the affidavit must negative an intent to injure the "defendants", though it is not necessary to add "or either of them". Perrill v. Kaufman, 72 Tex. 214, par. 2, 12 S.W. 125; Gunst v. Pelham, 74 Tex. 586, par. 3, 12 S.W. 233; Doty v. Moore, 102 Tex. 48, par. 2, 112 S.W. 1038; 7 C.J.S., Attachment, p. 303, § 127. The affidavit for attachment in this case was made by appellee in person.

The same reasoning applies with equal force to an affidavit for garnishment. Other cases cited by appellees are: Gunst v. Pelham, 74 Tex. 586, 12 S.W. 233; Kildare Lumber Co. v. Bank, 91 Tex. 95, 41 S.W. 64; Doty v. Moore (Tex. Sup.) 112 S.W. 1038; Buerger v. Wells, 110 Tex. 566, 222 S.W. 151; Ball v. Bennett, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 399, 52 S.W. 618; Smith v. Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 140 S.W. 1145; Barker v. Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 248 S.W. 478; Voelkel-McLain v. Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 296 S.W. 970; Spencer v. Davis (Tex.Civ.App.) 298 S.W. 443. The trial court properly sustained appellees' motion to quash the garnishment.

Article 3268, R.S., fixes the rule for construction of statutes, and says: "The singular and plural number shall each include the other unless otherwise expressly provided." The Supreme Court answering a certified question in case of Doty v. Moore, 102 Tex. 48, 112 S.W. 1038, speaking to the affidavit required for attachment, says: "That this rule obtains in the construction of the attachment law is expressly held in Lewis v. Stewart, 62 Tex. 352. We must, therefore, read the quoted clause of the last named statute as if it read `defendant or defendants,' and it follows that an affidavit using `defendants' when there are more than one strictly complies with the provision.