
    Voorhees and Co. v. Hoagland.
    Foreign Attachment—Practice.—On an appeal to the Circuit Court from a justice’s judgment in a case of foreign attachment,,the parties appeared and, by their agreement, the cause was tried by the Court. Judgment for the plaintiff. The judgment was objected to on error, because the attachment-bond was defective, and because publication of the pendency of the suit had not been made and proved before the justice continued the cause. Held, that the objections came too late.
    Same.—The above-mentioned suit was against several partners, and it was proved on the trial in the Circuit Court that one of them resided in this State when the suit was commenced. Held, that the suit might have been objected to on account of such residence by a plea in abatement, but that it was too late to make the objection after the defendants had appeared to the action, and entered on a trial of the merits.
    Same.—A writ of foreign attachment may issue, by statute, against partners in the name of their firm.
    ERROR to the FranJclin Circuit Court.
   Blackford, J.

This was a writ of foreign attachment, issued by a justice of the peace in favour of Hoagland against J. and P. Voorhees and Co. Judgment before the justice for the plaintiff by default. The defendants appealed. The parties appeared in the Circuit Court, and by their agreement, the cause was submitted to the Court without a jury. The suit was tried on the merits, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

The defendants’ first objection to the judgment is, that the attachment-bond filed before the justice is insufficient. this *objection comes too late. It should have been made before the defendants appeared to the action, and entered into a trial of the merits.

The next objection is, that the publication of the pendency of the suit was not made and proved before the.justice continued the cause, &c. This objection, like the other, comes too late.

It is also objected, that the judgment is for more than the amount claimed by the plaintiff before the justice; but the facts do not warrant this objection. The judgment is for the amount claimed in the affidavit filed before the justice, with interest; Henrie v. Sweasey, 5 Blackf., 273; and it is agreed by the parties that the affidavit was unobjectionable, and that the plaintiff filed before the justice a bill of particulars amounting to the sum named in the affidavit. '

G. Holland, for the plaintiffs.

J. Byman, for the defendant.

Another objection is, that it was proved on the trial in the Circuit Court that one of the defendants was resident in the State when this suit was commenced. That objection would have been good, had the defendants taken advantage of it in time by a plea in abatement in the Circuit Court. But it was too late to make it after they had appeared to the action, and entered on a trial of the merits.

The suit is commenced against the defendants in the name of their firm of J. and P. Voorhees and Co.; but that mode of proceeding is authorized by statute in such cases. Rev. Stat., 1838, p. 80.

Per Curiam.—The judgment is affirmed, with sis per cent. damages and costs.  