
    John G. Brooks et al., Appellants, v. The Mexican National Construction Company, Respondent.
    To authorize a review here of an order vacating an attachment, it must appear in the order itself that it was not vacated in the exercise of the discretion vested in the court below. The opinion of that court may not be looked at to ascertain the grounds of the decision.
    (Argued June 29, 1883 ;
    decided October 2, 1883.)
    The following is the mem. handed down herein :
    “ The Special Term of the New York Superior Court vacated the attachment granted in this action, and its order was affirmed at the General Term. It appears in the opinions pronounced in the court below, that the attachment was vacated on the ground that all the plaintiffs were not residents of the city of New York or of this State. (Code, §§ 263, 1780.) But it does not appear in the orders that the attachment was vacated on that ground. They do not show upon what ground, or for what reason, it was vacated. We have always held that we cannot look at the opinions of the court in such a case for the grounds of its decision. With reference to the jurisdiction of this court, we have a simple, uniform rule, so often announced that it must be familiar to the profession, and that is, that the ground for vacating the attachment must be found in the orders appealed from, and that they must show that it was not vacated in the exercise of a discretion vested in the court.
    “ This order, therefore, is not appealable to this court, and the appeal should be dismissed, with costs.”
    
      Henry D. Hotchkiss for appellants.
    
      George Zabriskie for respondent.
   Earl, J.,

reads for dismissal of appeal.

All concur, except Andrews, J., absent. Appeal dismissed.  