
    Charles H. Lafferty and Rose E. Lafferty, Executors Trustees of the last will and testament of Charles Lafferty, deceased, v. Patrick J. Corcoran, Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Attachment under act of March 17, 1869, Practice, 8. O.
    
    Ro appeal lies from a decree discharging defendant’s rule to show cause ■why a writ of attachment issued under the act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 8, should not he quashed and attachment dissolved.
    Argued March 24, 1896.
    Appeal, No. 189, July T., 1895, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1894, No. 964, discharging rule to dissolve attachment.
    Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, McCollum, Mitchell and Dean, JJ.
    Appeal quashed.
    Rule to dissolve attachment.
    From the record it appeared that the action was brought upon a writ of attachment under the fraudulent debtor’s act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 8, by Charles H. Lafferty and Rose E. Lafferty, executors of the estate of Charles Lafferty, deceased, against their coexecutor, Patrick Corcoran, upon an affidavit filed by them, alleging that said Corcoran had fraudulently taken from said estate large sums of money belonging to said estate and had not returned the same.
    Defendant took a ride to show cause why the writ of attachment should not be quashed, the attachment dissolved, and service set aside. This rule the court discharged.
    
      April 6, 1896 :
    
      Error assigned was above order.
    
      James M. Beck, W. F. Earrity witb him, for appellant.
    
      J. Willis Martin, Samuel Gustine Thompson, George L. Orawford and J. Sergeant Price, for appellees.
   Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the decree of tbe court below discharging defendant’s “ rule to show cause why the writ of attachment should not be quashed and attachment dissolved,” etc.

In the absence of any statutory authority for an appeal in such cases we have no power to review the action of the court below in the premises.

The writ of appeal is therefore quashed at appellant’s costs.  