
    Williams v. Walker, et al.
    
    1. Motion: party. Held that the court below erred in entertaining and sustaining a motion made by a person not a party to dissolve an attachment.
    
      Appeal from Cerro Gordo District Court.
    
    Saturday, October 6.
    Plaintiff sued Walker and Whitty and had certain lands attached as their property. One Hamlin appeared and moved to dissolve the attachment, which motion was sustained, and from this order plaintiff appeals.
    
      B. W. Poor for the appellants.
    
      Beineger, Card § Beineger for the appellees.
   Wright, J.

Hamlin was not a party to the action. By what authority he was permitted to interpose the motion to dissolve, does not appear. There are some affidavits tending to show that he owned the lands attached. Admitting that he was the owner, he would have no right upon that ground to be heard in this way. This is well settled in the cases of Loring v. Edes, 8 Iowa 427; Whipple v. Cass, Ib. 126; Phillip v. Shelton, 6 Ib. 545.

The order dissolving the attachment is reversed.  