Case Name: GEORGE EGENER, Appellant, v. EMMA JUCH et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1894-01-11
Citations: 101 Cal. 105
Docket Number: No. 19155
Parties: GEORGE EGENER, Appellant, v. EMMA JUCH et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 105–107

Head Matter:
[No. 19155.
Department Two.
January, 11, 1894.]
GEORGE EGENER, Appellant, v. EMMA JUCH et al., Respondents.
Attachment—Dissolution—Residence of Defendants—Conflicting Evidence.—An order dissolving an attachment against the defendants as nonresidents will be affirmed where the affidavits used on the motion conflict as to where their legal residence was at the date of the attachment, and it appears that they were then actually engaged in the state in professional work, and were served personally in the state with summons.
Id.—Actual Residence—Domicile.—The residence referred to by the-attachment law is an actual, as contradistinguished from a constructive, or legal, residence or domicile.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County dissolving an attachment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Jay E. Hunter, and Creighton & Creighton, for Appellant.
W. E. Dunn, for Respondent.

Opinion:
McFarland, J.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order of the lower court dissolving an attachment. The validity of the attachment depended upon the question whether or not the respondents were " not residing" or " nonresidents" of this state at the time the writ issued. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 537, 538.) At that time they were actually in the state engaged in their professional work, and were served personally in the state with summons. The affidavits used on the motion conflicted as to where their legal residence was; and considering the decision of this court in Hanson v. Graham, 82 Cal. 631, to the effect that " the residence referred to by the attachment law is an actual, as contra-distinguished from a constructive, or legal residence or domicile," we cannot say that the court below was wrong in holding that respondents were not nonresidents within meaning of the sections of the code above referred to.
The order appealed from is affirmed.