Moore

Plaintiff commenced an action against • defendant on May 12, 1922, in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, and contemporaneously filed an affidavit and undertaking for attachment. Shortly thereafter defendant gave notice of motion to dissolve the attachment on the ground that said attachment was wrongfully and irregularly issued, in that the defendant was at the commencement of the action, “ever since has been and now is a resident” of the state of California, and not a nonresident, as alleged in the affidavit in support of said attachment, and that the contract referred to in plaintiff’s affidavit and upon which said action was brought was not an express contract for the direct payment of money payable in the state of California. Upon the hearing of this motion the court ordered that the application to dissolve the attachment be granted. From this order plaintiff appeals.

From the affidavit for attachment in the instant case it appears that the basis for said attachment is that the defendant is indebted to plaintiff “upon an express contract for the direct payment of money . . . and that such contract is payable in this state.” Also that the defendant is a…