
    MARGARET E. WOOD, Administratrix, etc., of GEORGE J. WOOD, Deceased, v. IDA M. HAMILTON.
    Code of Civil Procedure § 686—Affidavit for attachment—When it
    SUFFICIENTLY SHOWS NON-RESIDENCE.
    Appeal from two orders of the general term of the city court, affirming orders of the special term of that court, denying defendant’s motion to vacate attachment granted on the ground of non-residence of the defendant. ^
   Per Curiam.

The facts appearing on the record clearly show, in our opinion, that, at the time the attachments were issued, the defendant had no place of residence in the state of New York, and was a non-resident of this state, within the meaning of section 686 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and this, although her domicile may have been the state of New York—on which the evidence is not conclusive—it is certain that at the time of issuing the attachment, she had no place of abode within this state, nor any place which she could call her home, nor to which she could return on coming to this state. Her intentions as to the future do not affect the question.

The defendant at the time of granting the attachment was living in the state of New Jersey; and, we think, was, at the time, a resident of that state, under The Mayor, etc., v. Genet (4 Hun, 487; affirmed 63 N. Y., 646); Wallace et al. v. Cassel et al. (68 N. Y., 370); Murphy v. Baldwin (11 Abb., N. S., 407).

The order mus4- therefore, be affirmed with costs.  