
    WATERBURY v. WATERBURY.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    February 12, 1894.)
    Appeal from special term, Orange county.
    Action by Almeda Waterbury against James Eliphalet Waterbury to recover money alleged to be due. From an order denying a motion by Harriet E. Drew, a junior attaching creditor of defendant, to set aside plaintiff’s attachment on the papers on which it was granted, said Drew appeals.
    Argued before DYKMAN, PRATT, and CULLEN, JJ.
    M. N.’ Kane,' for appellant.
    J. V. D. Benedict, for respondent.
   PRATT, J.

We think the affidavit of plaintiff was sufficiént to call upon the court to exercise its discretion, and that will suffice to give jurisdiction. In opposition to the motion, to vacate the attachment, the plaintiff argues that the moving papers do not show a valid "attachment' in favor of the subsequent creditor. As we are of opinion that plaintiff’s papers are sufficient, we are not compelled to analyze those of the Subsequent creditors. • Order affirmed, with costs.  