
    Shugart vs. Orr.
    Our attachment laws authorize a proceeding by attachment only against residents who abscond or conceal themselves, so that ordinary process of law cannot be served on them.
    A citizen of another State, who removed from that State clandestinely, and conceals himself in Tennessee to evade the service of process, is not a resident within the meaning of our attachment laws, until he has procured a fixed place of residence.
    No amendment should be allowed after the determination of a writ of error prosecuted from the county to the circuit court. The application to amend comes too late.
    Shugart sued out an attachment against Orr, returnable to the county court, and declared against him in debt. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that both plaintiff and defendant were, at the time of beginning the action, citizens of the State of Virginia. To this plea there was a demurrer, which on argument was sustained; the plea overruled, and pleas to the action put in. Trial and judgment for the plaintiff; writ of error to the circuit court. On ai’gument the judgment was reversed, the demurrer overruled, plea in abatement allowed, and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff moved to amend by filing a replication to the plea in abatement, to wit, that at the time of suing out the attachment, defendant was not a citizen and resident of Virginia, but had secretly, in the night, abandoned his place of residence in Virginia, and at said time was concealing himself in'the State of Tennessee, so that the ordinary process of law could not be served upon him. This the court refused to receive.
    
      J. A. JIPKinney, for plaintiff in error.
    P. Parsons, for defendant in error.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The question debated, is, did the court err in refusing to permit the amendment? We are of opinion there is no error in this. The plea was matter in abatement. Our acts contemplate the process of original attachment against residents who abscond or conceal themselves so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon them. This defendant was not a resident within the meaning of our attachment laws. From any thing shown in the pleading, he had no fixed place of abode in Tennessee, from which he could abscond.

Again: we are of opinion that on writs of error, no amendments should be allowed. Such has been the practice in this court in cases from the circuit court. Amendments must be applied for and had in a reasonable time, and before final judgment} at least suitors should not be permitted to experiment on one form of pleading, and failing in that, resort to another. We will, therefore, not order a repleader, or permit the amendment, but affirm the judgment-.

Judgment affirmed.  