
    O’Connor et al. v. Donaldson.
    There being some evidence to support the finding of the judge as to the non-residence of the debtor in the county at the time the attachment was issued, his judgment dissolving the attachment was not contrary to law.
    March 20, 1893.
    
    Argued at the last term.
    Attachment. Before Judge Jenkins. Baldwin county. At chambers, April 12, 1892.
    Creditors of Donaldson brought their petitions to the superior court of Baldwin county, alleging that he was of that county, and that he had made fraudulent sales of and mortgages upon his property consisting of a stock of liquors, etc.; and praying for the issuance of attachments against him. These were issued and levied. Donaldson filed a traverse in each, case, denying that at the time of suing out the attachment he was a resident of said county, and alleging that at said time he was a resident of Dodge county. The issue thus made was, by consent, heard by the judge without a jury, the cases being consolidated. The evidence adduced was directly conflicting. The judge ordered that the traverses be sustained and the attachments removed, on the ground that the superior court of Baldwin county had no jurisdiction of the defendant at the time of the issuance and levy of the attachments.
   Judgment affirmed.

Roberts & Pottle, for plaintiffs.

R. H. Lewis and Whitfield & Allen, for defendant.  