
    Young v. Gerdes.
    1. An order of a justice of the peace overruling a motion to discharge an attachment, is reviewable on error as a final order, independent of the action in which the attachment issued.
    2. After said order has been made it is not error for the justice to proceed and determine the cause of action on its merits and render a judgment and order of sale without again hearing evidence as to the grounds upon which the attachment issued.
    Motion for leave to file petition to reverse tbe judgment of tbe District Court of Hamilton county.
    On January 8, 1883, G. & B. Gerdes, defendants in error, by their attorney made an affidavit before a justice of tbe peace that Young & ~Wohlater being indebted to them, bad property and rights in action which they concealed, and have removed and are about to remove their property out of the county, with intent to defraud their creditors, and upon this affidavit caused an attachment to be issued, under which the property of plaintiffs in error was seized. .On January 13, 1883, plaintiffs in error filed a motion to discharge the attachment. On January 17, 1883, the justice of tlie peace overruled tlie motion to discharge the attachment and the case then coming on for hearing upon the merits, one witness was examined and testified as to the amount of the claim said to be owing by Young & Wohlater to G. & 13. Gerdes, and to nothing else, and thereupon, without any other testimony whatsoever being presented, the justice of the peace rendered judgment'in favor of G. & B. Gerdes for the amount claimed, and sustained the attachment.
    
      Moulton, Johnson <& Levy, for the motion.
   By the Court.

The order "of the justice overruling the motion to discharge the attachment was reviewable on error, and for that purpose a bill of exceptions might have been taken (Rev. Stats. § 2524). As no showing is made that said order was erroneous, the presumption is, that upon the hearing of that motion, the justice found that the affidavit was true, and that the attachment was properly issued. This was an ancillary proceeding to the cause of action afterwards heard upon its merits, and it was not necessary to the rendition of final judgment upon the cause of action that the justice should again hear and determine the grounds for the attachment.

Judgment affirmed.  