
    Howard & Soule, plaintiffs in error, vs. B. M. Strickland, defendant in error. Howard & Soule, plaintiffs in error, vs. W. P. Trout & Company, defendants in error.
    (These cases ■were heard and decided together.)
    Where there was no evidence to sustain the judgment of the justice, the order of the superior court dismissing the writ of certiorari thereto, was error.
    
      Certiorari. Evidence. Before Judge Underwood. Floyd Superior Court. July Term, 1874.
    For the facts, see the decision.
    J. N. Glenn, for plaintiffs in error.
    Forsyth & Reese, by T. W. Alexander, for defendants.
   Warner, Chief Justice.

This case came before the court below on a certiot'ctri from a justice court, on the hearing of which the court overruled. the grounds taken in the certiorari and dismissed it; whereupon the plaintiffs excepted. It appears from the record that two attachments in favor of the plaintiffs therein had been levied on two sewing machines, as the property of one Fitzgerald, which were claimed by Howard & Soule as their property. On the trial of the claim in the justice court, the property levied on was found subject to the attachments. On examining the evidence had on the trial in the justice court, there is nothing going to show that the sewing machines were the property of Fitzgerald, but on the contrary the evidence is quite clear that the machines were not his property. In our judgment the court erred in not sustaining the certiorari and ordering a new trial.

Let the judgment of the court below be reversed.  