
    KING v. COOPER.
    February 3, 1838
    
      Rule to simio cause why the foreign attachment should not be dissolved.
    
    Foreign attachment against a resident of New Jersey, who visits Philadelphia twice for short periods of time on the day of issuing the writ, it not appearing that he was in the county at the precise time of its issuing, will not be dissolved.
    FOREIGN attachment to March term, 1838, No. 29; and this was a rule on the plaintiff to show his cause of action and why the attachment should not be dissolved. On the hearing of the rule, it appeared that the defendant was a resident of New Jersey, and that on the day of the issuing of the writ, he had been twice for a short time in the city of Philadelphia, but the rest of the day in New Jersey.
    
      Whitman, for the rule.
    
      -Holcomb & Wheeler, contra.
   Per Curiam.—

The defendant is a person “ not residing within this commonwealth,” and it not being averred, we cannot infer from the circumstance that he was here, on the day of the issuing, twice for very short periods of time, that he was within the county “ at the time of the issuing ” of the writ. (See Stroud’s Purd. tit. Action.)

Rule discharged. 
      
      
        Vide Shipman v. Woodbury, ante, p. 67.
     