
    SAMUEL F. DINAN, Respondent, v. JULIAN ALLEN, Appellant.
    
      Attachment — presumption as to the ground upon which it was granted.
    
    Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest and a warrant of attachment.
    ■With reference to the attachment, the court at General Term said : “The affidavit upon which the order of attachment is also granted shows that the defendant was a non-resident of the State at the time of the commencement of the action, and is quite sufficient to have justified the order of attachment on that ground. The attachment does not appear in the papers, and we are not able, therefore, to see that it was not granted on the ground of non-residence as well as of alleged fraud. The Code requires that the attachment shall state the ground, but in the absence of the warrant we ought to assume that the court granted the attachment upon all the grounds sufficiently established, prima facie, by the affidavit.
    “ For these reasons we think the attachment should not be vacated.”
    
      Jff. Gothren, for the appellant. Qornelius A.. Runlcle, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Davis, P. J. ;

Brady and Ingalls, JJ., concurred.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and affirmed as modified, without costs to either party.  