#### JOHN W. TAYLOR & CO. vs. CONSTANT W. BUCKLEY.

A non-resident creditor cannot, under our attachment laws, attach the proper-of his debtor in this State, when the latter has not absconded nor removed to avoid the ordinary process of law.

The case of BrogMll v. Welliorn, 4 Dev. 511, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Surry County, at the Spring Term, 1845, his Honor Judge Baxley presiding.

This was a suit .commenced by attachment. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that both the plaintiffs and the defendant were non-residents of this State, and were residents of another government, to-wit, the plaintiffs of New York, and the defendant of Texas. To this plea, the plaintiffs demurred. The court overruled the demurrer and dismissed the attachment, from which judgment the plaintiffs appealed.

Boyden for the plaintiffs.

Mqrehead for the defendant.

Daniel, J,

The plaintiffs are citizens of New York, and the defendant is a citizen of Texas. In the case of Broghill v. Wellborn, 4 Dev. 511, this court said, that a non-resident creditor cannot, under our attachment laws, attach the property of his debtor in this State, when the latter has not abscond ed nor removed to avoid the ordinary process of the law. It is not necessary here to repeat the reasons of the decision in that case. The case is in point and supports the judgment rendered in the Superior Court, which must, therefore, be affirmed.

Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.