Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/230

 eration property which the law itself exempts from execution.”

The question of the appealability of an order of the district court vacating an attachment is discussed in the brief of appellant’s counsel, but is not mentioned by respondent. We hold that such an order is appealable. Section 5236, Comp. Laws, subd. 4, has been recently examined by the supreme court of South Dakota. and held to authorize the appeal. Bank v. Carroll, 44 N. W. Rep. 723; Couldren v. Caughey, 29 Wis. 320; Rice v. Jerenson, 54 Wis. 250, 11 N. W. Rep. 549. The order of the district court vacating the attachment is affirmed. All concur.

, Co-Partners as, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. , Defendant and Appellant.

1. Attachment Papers Not Part of Pleadings.

Attachment proceedings are incidental to the main case, and form no part of the pleadings proper; and it is error to render judgment on the pleadings while a material issue raised by the complaint and answer remains untried.

APPEAL from district court, Cass county; Hon., Judge.

W. B. Douglass and Messrs. Ball & Smith, for appellants, cited: Harrison v. King, 9 Ohio ‘St. 388; Gowan v. Hanson, 55 Wis. 341.

H. F. Miller, and Messrs. Miller, Cleland & Cleland, for the respondent, cited, upon the point stated in the foregoing syllabus: Rollins v. Kohn, 66 Wis. 658; Sackett v. Partridge, 4 Iowa 416; Churchill v. Fullrain, 8 id. 46; Wade on Attachments, vol. 1, page 298.

, J. On December 27, 1887, plaintiffs commenced this action, alleging an indebtedness on account for goods sold and delivered in the sum of $3,136.91, and that said amount was due and payable. The action was aided by attach-