
    WILLIAM HAWLEY et al. v. JOHN DELMAS et al.
    
    
      Attachment, msurrionara Avitdavit. — An affidavit for attachment is insufficient, which avers that the defendant is indebted to the' plaintiff upon an express or implied contract.
    Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District
    This was an appeal from an order of the District Court, quashing the attachment in the case, on the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavit upon which it was issued. The affidavit alleges an indebtedness of the defendants to the plaintiffs, “over and above all legal set-offs or counter claims, upon a contract express or implied for the direct payment,” etc. The Court" below held the affidavit uncertain and indefinite, in alleging the contract to be in the alternative, either express or implied, and therefore insufficient.
    Erom this order the appeal was taken.
    No brief on file for Appellant.
    
      Stephen J. Field, for Eespondents,
    
      
       Distinguished in dope v. W. M. M. & P. do., 1 Mont. 56; Harvey v. Poster, 64 Cal. 298; WiVee v. Cohn, 54 Cal. 214.
    
   Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

The affidavit for attachment ought to state the ground in ■positive terms. A description in the alternative has always been held insufficient.

Judgment affirmed.  