
    Farrington Burcalow v. Isaac V. Trump.
    A foreign attachment will lie against a non-resident, notwithstanding he was temporarily in the State at the time when it was issued.
    Foreign attachment case and motion to quash the writ, because the defendant, although his residence was in Hew Jersey, was in this State at the time it was issued. The proof showed that the defendant resided in Hew Jersey, but was in Hew Castle County on the day, and for several days before and after, the writ was issued.
    
      Whitely,
    
    In support of the motion, argued, that as the main object of a writ of foreign attachment is to compel the appearance of a foreign debtor, out of the jurisdiction of the court and beyond the limits of the State, it could not properly or lawfully issue against a non-resident, who was at the time in the State and within reach of the usual and ordinary process of the Court.
   But the Court,

Wootten, J.,

dissenting, were of a different opinion, and discharged the rule to show cause, &c. The whole question depends under the words of the act, upon the residence of the party at the time. If the party resides out of the State at the time when the foreign attachment is issued, he is amenable to the process, notwithstanding he may have been temporarily in the State at, before, and after that time. Such, we think, is the construction which the words of the act require, and we have no discretion over it.  