
    Albert G. Dimmerling, Respondent, v. Archie M. Andrews, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.
    
      Practice — service on non-resident — when motion to vacate judgment, attachment, service of summons and orders of publication thereof should be granted.
    
    
      Dimmerling v. Andrews, 205 App. Div. 856, reversed.
    (Argued April 17, 1923;
    decided May 1, 1923.
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 25, 1923, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate a judgment, an attachment, service of the summons and complaint on said appellant and the order of publication of the summons. The following questions were certified:
    “ (1) Does section 232 of the Civil Practice Act require proof of the issuance of a warrant of attachment against the property óf a non-resident defendant, and the levy thereof upon his property within the state, as a condition precedent to the granting of an order for service of the summons upon him by publication?
    “ (2) May a valid levy of an attachment against the property of a non-resident defendant be made more than twenty days after the completion of the service of the summons upon him by publication?
    “ (3) Did the entry of the judgment against the defendant Archie M. Andrews, under the circumstances disclosed by the record, constitute £ due process of law? ’ ”
    
      Henry L. Sherman and Lionel S. Popkin for appellant.
    
      Edwin J. Dryer and Raymond D. Thurber for respondent.
   Orders reversed, with costs in all courts, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs of the motion, on authority of Dimmerling v. Andrews (236 N. Y. 43). First question certified answered in the affirmative; other questions not answered.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  