
    Hill versus Hunnewell.
    Trie referring of an action and all demands between the parties to arbitration dissolves an attachment, and discharges bail, Aliter, if the action and only the demands of the defendant against the plaintiff are referred.
    The defendant, as deputy sheriff, made an attachment of properly on mesne process in an action brought by the plaintiff against one Ernes. That action and all demands between Hill and Ernes were referred to arbitration, under a rule of court, and the officer applied the property to the satisfaction of an execution in favor of a subsequently attaching creditor of Ernes. The plaintiff obtained judgment and execution against Ernes, and now brought this action against the officer for not applying the property attached on his writ to the satisfaction of his execution.
    
      Stearns, for the plaintiff.
    
      Phinney, for the defendant, cited Tidd’s Pr. (2d Am. Ed.) 993.
   The Court held, that the mere fact of entering into sucn a reference dissolves an attachment, for otherwise subsequently attaching creditors might be injured ; and that it likewise discharges bail. And Jackson J. remarked, that in order to save an attachment, it was usual for parties to enter into a reference of the action, and of all demands which the defendant has against the plaintiff.1 
      
        Bean v. Parker, 17 Mass. R. 603; Mooney v. Kavanagh, 4 Greenl. 277.
     