Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/618

 60e FEDBBAL BIll>OBTËB. �Under the statutes of Ohio the plaintiff filed his affidavit, Betting forth that he was abolit to sue the defendant to recover the sum of $100,000 due him on the contract; that the defendant was a foreign corporation, and a non-resident of the state of Ohio, and that the Third National Bank of Cincin- nati had money and propertjPbelonging to defendant. Upon the filing of this affidavit an order of attachment was issued and aerved upon the Third National Bank of Cincinnati, who answered that they were indebted to the defendant in the sum of $726.22. The attachment was also served upon the Na- tional Bank of Commerce of Cincinnati, Ohio, who answered that they were indebted to the defendant in the sum of $1,323. A Bummons was also issued, and returned that the defendant was not found. �After the removal of the case into this court the defendant filed his motion to discharge the attachment for the following reasons : (1 .) That the defendant is a foreign corporation, and a non-resident of the state of Ohio, and a resident and citizen of the state of Kentucky, and the claim does not arise upon con- tract, judgment, or decree, nor is it for causing death by a wrongful or negligent act. (2.) Because the attachment was issued contrary to the law in such case made and provided. The statutes of Ohio provide, (section 5521 :) "In a civil action for the recovery of money the plaintiff may, at or after the commencement thereof, have an attachment against the property of the defendant upon the grounds hereinafter stated : First, when the defendant, or one of the several defendants, is a foreign corporation, or a non-resident of this state." And the latter clause of the section provides: "But an attachment shall not be granted on the ground that the defendant is a foreign corporation or a non-resident of this state for any claim other than a debt or demand arising upon contract, judgment, or decree, or for causing death by a negligent or wrongful act." The defendant in this case is a foreign cor- poration, and a non-resident of the state, and the sufficiency of the first reason assîgned for the discharge of the attach- ment rests upon the character of the claim upon which this ����