1. In an attachment suit on the ground that defendant is an absconding debtor, it is necessary to show that defendant, with intent to defeat or delay the demands of his creditors, conceals or withdraws himself from his usual place of residence beyond the reach of process; and it is necessary for the creditor in such cases to ascertain, if he can do so by all natural ordinary means at hand his debtor's whereabouts, in order to serve him with process.
2. The proofs in this case showed that the alleged absconder, being a man without a family, occupied a room at a certain address; that he got his meals at a nearby restaurant, where he was seen almost daily by the witnesses; and that he worked, whenever work was available, at a tailor shop in the same building wherein he lived. Held, that this evidence failed to disclose any diligence on the part of plaintiff to ascertain these facts, and therefore the issuance of the writ of attachment was not justified.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Judge Ackerson in the Circuit Court.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, WALKER, JJ. 16.
For reversal — None.