
    Wharton and Others v. Chipman and Another.
    Suit by attachment. The defendants answered jointly to the affidavit in attachment, and one of the defendants also filed a separate answer to the same. The separate answer was rejected on motion.
    
      Held, that as there was a denial by all the defendants of the matters alleged in the affidavit, and this denial covered all that was embraced in the separate answer, the ruling was not erroneous.
    
      Wednesday, January 23.
    APPEAL from the Delaware Circuit Court.
   Per Curiam.

Action by the appellees, against the appellants, upon a promissory note. An attachment was issued, and property attached. The defendants all answered, denying the matters charged in the affidavit for the attachment. One of the defendants answered, denying the matters specially alleged against him, as the ground for the attachment; but this answer was stricken out, on motion of the plaintiffs. This is the only error complained of, or noticed in the brief of counsel for the appellant. --- '

W. Brotherton, A. Steele and IT. JD. Thompson, for appellants.

IF. JMJareh, G. E. Shipley, A. Kilgore, JD. Nation and G. JMJ. Anthony, for appellees.

We think there was no error in the ruling of the Court below, as there was a denial by all of the defendants of the matters alleged in the affidavit, and this denial covered all that was embraced in the paragraph stricken out.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs and 5 per cent, damages.  