
    Charles H. Wenzell, Resp’t, v. John D. Morrisey, App’lt.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed October 8, 1889.)
    
    Attachment — Sufficiency of affidavits to obtain.
    An averment in the affidavit that proceedings for attachment are-grounded on “services for plaintiff as the attorney for the defendant, rehdered in x>rosecuting certain suits upon his retainer, and for drawing and engrossing certain instruments in writing” * * * “which services, were performed and money advanced between September 30, 1883, and January 1, 1888,” makes a positive averment, and shows the existence of the statutory conditions.
    Appeal from order of supreme court, general term, third department, affirming order of special term denying motion to set aside attachment.
    
      Otto Uorwitz, for app’lt; W. M Kisselhurgh, Jr., for resp’t.
    
      
       Affirming 18 N. Y. State Rep,, 336.
    
   Andrews, J.

The courts below have sustained the attachment.

Rules for the guidance of the discretion of a court or judge in. granting an attachment, and upon which the general term act in. reviewing such discretion, have been announced in many cases. Here the only question is one of jurisdiction. If the affidavits-upon which the attachment issued showed the existence of the-statutory conditions, it is an end of the appeal. We think they did show a cause of action on contract on money loaned and goods-sold to the amount of $5,746. Some of the facts are imperfectly stated and some are left to inference, but the facts to be inferred are the sequence of the facts directly stated. The opinion of the-general term is full upon the questions debated and elaboration here is unnecessary.

Order affirmed.

All concur.  