
    Weber Chimney Company, Appellant, v. Claude A. Johnson, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 22,842.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Attachment, § 14
      
      —when evidence is sufficient to establish residence within State. Evidence held sufficient to establish defendant’s residence within the State, in an action in attachment against defendant as a nonresident debtor, where it appeared that defendant was a traveling man, absent from the State most of the time, but had rented a room in a house in a city within the State, carried a key and occupied the room when in the city.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Lockwood Honobe, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 16, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action of attachment by the Weber Chimney Company, plaintiff, against Claude A. Johnson, defendant, as a nonresident debtor. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Frederic Burnham, for appellant.
    Rankin, Howard & Donnelly, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vots. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court,

2. Attachment, § 3*—when act construed strictly. An attachment is an extraordinary remedy, and the act is strictly construed against the party seeking to enforce its drastic provisions.

3. Attachment—when grounds of must be strictly proven. There are no presumptions in favor of plaintiffs in attachment suits; the grounds of attachment must be strictly proven.

4. Attachment—residence as question of fact. The question of residence in an attachment suit is one of fact.

5. Domicile, § 4*—what considered in determining residence. The question of residence is largely a matter of intent.

6. Appeal and error, § 1500 —when exactitude in rulings of court are not imperative. Where the merits of the controversy are strongly in favor of the defendant, exactitude in the rulings of the court in procedure or on instructions are not imperative.  