Kohler

This is an appeal from an order of the superior court refusing to dissolve an attachment.

The action is brought by the assignee of an insolvent corporation, organized under the laws of the state of California, against Agassiz, Shaw, and a number of others, to recover the balance due from them severally upon their subscriptions to the capital stock of the company.

The point made by appellants (Agassiz and Shaw) is, “ that the cause of action is not an attachable cause of action.”

So much of the affidavit of the plaintiff upon which the writ of attachment issued as is essential here is as follows: —

The statements of the affidavit are more ample than they are required to be by statute in support of an attachment against a non-resident of the state.

The several subdivisions of section 537 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide that the plaintiff may have the property of the defendant attached “in an action upon a contract, expressed or implied, against a defendant not residing in this state.” In the case of resident defendants, the right to the writ is given only in cases of contract made or payable in this state, and other limitations are prescribed which are not applicable in…