
    Frank N. Dodd, Appellant, v. Permelia M. D. Averill, Respondent.
    (New York Common Pleas
    General Term,
    December, 1895.)
    If the evidence of the residence of the defendant suffices to uphold an order vacating an attachment, though the proof to the contrary preponderate, such order by the City Court is not reviewable by the Com- ' mon Pleas. 1
    
      Appeal from .order of the General Term of the City Court, affirming order at Special Term vacating an attachment issued on the ground of the nonresidence of the defendant.
    
      Robert Yam, Iderstine, for appellant.
    
      W. T. B. MUUken, for respondent.
   Pbyob, J.

While the evidence as to the nonresidence of the defendant is quite impressive, it cannot be denied that, there is proof to the contrary sufficient to support the order vacating the 'attachment. - Such being the case, whether the attachment should stand rested in the discretion of the court below, and its action in vacating it is not reviewable by an appellate tribunal. Sartwell v. Field, 68 N. Y. 341; Allen v. Meyer, 73 id. 1; Glenney v. Stedwell, 64 id. 120, 128; Jenkins v. Putnam, 106 id. 272, 276 ; Claflin v. Baere, 59 How. (Ct. of App.) 20.

We have uniformly held that on appeal from the City Court we will not review its action upon matters of discretion. Keller v. Feldman, 2 Misc. Rep. 179, 181; Pots v. Herman, 7 id. 4; Capel v. Lyons, 3 id. 73 ; Tooker v. Booth, 8 id. 304. It not being apparent but that the attachment, in question was vacated in the exercise of discretion,' we have no jurisdiction to review the order of the City Court. Brooks v. Mexican, etc., Company, 93 N. Y. 647.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Daly, Oh. J., and Bisohoff, J., concur.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.  