
    *Penman et al. v. Wayne.
    
      Foreign attachment.
    
    Under what circumstances, a person may be considered a resident in the state.
    This cause came again before the court, in consequence of the former decision, that, on the rule to show cause why the writ should not be quashed, “ the defendant may controvert the fact of his not, being resident in the state for two years next before the writ issued,” which was stated in the deposition filed on the part of the plaintiff, in order to ground a capias against him, notwithstanding his being a freeholder. See ante, p. 241.
    
      Sergeant,
    
    now produced an additional affidavit, setting forth, that the defendant had left this state, and resided in Georgia (where he had considerable property), for upwards of fifteen months, next before the writ issued.
    In opposition to which, Lewis examined a witness, who proved that the defendant had a real estate in Chester county, whereon his wife and several children constantly resided ; that' he had expressed an intention of selling his property in Georgia ; that he never meant permanei .tly to -eside there, but went thither upon particular business ; and that as soon as that was transacted, he designed to return to his estate and family in Pennsylvania.
   The Court

were unanimously and clearly of opinion, that, upon these circumstances, the defendant ought to be considered as a resident of the state of Pennsylvania, and was entitled to his privilege as a freeholder.

Whereupon, the rule to show cause why the writ should not be quashed, was made absolute, 
      
      
         See Lazarus Barnet’s case, and Taylor v. Knox, ante, p. 152 and 158, and the cases cited in the notes, as to the circumstances which render a person an inhabitant under the attachment laws.
     