#### Taufick N. Kotite and Naman S. Farhood, copartners, Defendants in Error, v. Abo-Samra S. Gazelle, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 18,568.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edwabd A. Dicker, Judge presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 2, 1914.

*117Abstract of the Decision.

1. Attachment, § 265 * —irregularities in writ as ground for reversal of judgment on merits. Where the defendant in attachment entered his general appearance a.nd the court found in favor of him on the attachment issues and against him on the issues as to the merits, he can not urge informalities in the attachment writs as grounds for the reversal of the judgment against him on the merits.

2. ' Attachment, § 229 * —effect of general appearance. Defendant in attachment hy filing a general appearance gives the court jurisdiction though the attachment writ may have been informal.

Statement of the Case.

Suit in attachment hy Taufick N. Kotite and Ñaman S. Farhood, co-partners, doing business as Kotite & Farhood, against Aho-Samra S. G-azelle. The attachment writ was served upon defendant in person and he entered his general appearance in the cause. The case was tried by the court, who found against the plaintiffs on the attachment issues and against the defendant on the merits. To reverse the judgment against defendant on the merits, defendant brings error.

Francis E. Hinckley, for plaintiff in error.

Harry J. Myerson and Don C. Wray, for defendants in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.