
    PROCEDURE ON THE OVERRULING BY A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF MOTION TO DISCHARGE ATTACHMENT.
    [Circuit Court of Hamilton County.]
    Eugene Lyon v. Elizabeth Phares.
    Decided, April —, 1907.
    
      Attachment — Proceedings in, Before a Justice of the Peace — ■Motion to Discharge Overruled — Appeal to the Common Pleas — Procedure Thereafter — Error—Section 6494.
    Section 6494, as amended, does not give jurisdiction of the entire case in an appeal from an order by a magistrate overruling a motion to discharge an attachment, but the decision by the common pleas is to be sent to the justice to be entered by him in his docket as the final judgment of the matter in the justice’s court, and this judgment of the justice is the only final judgment in the action and the only one from which error may be prosecuted.
    Swing, J.; Gieeen, <L, and Smith, J., concur.
    Lyon brought an action in attachment befoie a justice of the peace in Hamilton county against Phares. A motion was made before the justice to discharge the attachment, which motion the justice overruled. Thereupon the defendant took an appeal to the court of common pleas. In that court the judge gave judgment discharging the attachment. Error is prosecuted to this court to reverse the judgment of the court of common pleas.
    
      We are of the opinion that error does not lie to this court from the judgment of the judge of the court of common pleas.
    It is not the final judgment of the court of common pleas in an action pending therein. The statute, Section 6494, Revised Statutes, permits an appeal to the court or a judge, and it is intended that the question should be decided m three days by either, and when decided, the decision is to be sent to the justice and by him is to be entered as the final judgment in that matter-in the justice’s court; and said property, moneys and credits are to be disposed of as directed in said judgment — that is, by the judgment of the justice. The judgment of the justice is the only final judgment in the action and the onl'r one to which error may be prosecuted.
    This court in a former case, which was not reported, so held. That case is referred to in 3 C. C. — N. S., 366.
    The cause should be stricken from the docket.
    
      H. L. Cooper and Samuel W. Bell, for the plaintiff in- error.
    
      W. K. Maxwell, contra.
     