Case Name: James T. Wentworth, Appellant, v. John R. Moore et al., Respondents
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1911-08-08
Citations: 64 Wash. 451
Docket Number: No. 9517
Parties: James T. Wentworth, Appellant, v. John R. Moore et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
[No. 9517.
En Banc.
August 8, 1911.]
James T. Wentworth, Appellant, v. John R. Moore et al., Respondents.
Attachment—Dissolution—Failure to Give Bond—Condition Precedent. On motion to dissolve an attachment erroneously issued without a bond, leave to file a bond is properly denied, the statute making the filing of, a bond á condition precedent to an attachment.
Appeal from an order of the superior court for King county, Sheeks, J., entered January 31, 1911, discharging an attachment, after a hearing before the court.
Affirmed.
Geo. D. Emery (W. D. Covington, of counsel), for appellant.
Reynolds, Ballinger Sj- Hutson, for respondents.
Reported in 117 Pac. 251.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment. Plaintiff, at the time of filing his complaint, filed an affidavit for a writ of attachment to be levied on real estate only, alleging, among other things, that the defendants were nonresidents. The writ was issued and levied upon the real estate referred to. The defendants entered their appearance, and moved to vacate and quash the writ of attachment on the ground that the defendants were residents of the state of Washington prior to,' at the time of, and subsequent to the issuance of the writ. This question was tried out on affidavits furnished by both parties, and the court found that the defendants were residents of the state, and decreed the dissolution of the attachment. We have read the affidavits and do not feel justified in disturbing the findings of the court in that regard. The plaintiff then offered to file a bond, which offer we think was properly denied by the court, the statute making the execution and filing of a bond a condition precedent to the issuance of the writ. The question objected to by defendants, which objection was sustained by the court, was irrelevant and immaterial, as it did not touch on the subject of residence; and without a bond the attachment should not have issued.
The judgment is affirmed.