Tuck

The motion to dissolve the attachment was not based on any alleged insufficiency in the affidavit, but on the ground that the *305 cause of action set forth in the complaint was of such a nature that under the statute no attachment could issue upon it; or, in other words, it was claimed that the facts alleged in the complaint did not state a cause of action “ upon a contract, expressed or implied, for the direct payment of money.” The substance of the complaint was, that the defendant, by a written contract, (a copy of which was annexed to the complaint] had agreed with the plaintiff to construct a peat machine and its appurtenances within sixty days, at his own expense, and put the same in running order at a point on the San Joaquin River. The contract specifies the machinery, and as a part of it a scow of certain proportions; and the complaint avers that at the time of the execution of the agreement and soon thereafter the plaintiff paid to the defendant in advance, as a part of the contract price, several sums of money, amounting in the aggregate to four hundred and thirty-three dollars and fifty cents, and that though the time for performing the contract by the defendant had…