Upon what ground his Honor gave the decided opinion, that Die plaintiffs could not recover, upon the evidence offered in the cause, without submitting to the jury the questions of fact raised by such evidence, we are not informed.
The counsel for the defendant in this Court relies upon two grounds to sustain the opinion cf his Honor.
1st. That the return of the levy is insufficient.
2d. That there was no evidence that there had been any advertisement, or that the defendant in the attachment had any notice of the proceedings.
The first question is against the defendant, as is shown by *340the authorities cited by plaintiff’s counsel., Huggins v. Ketchum 4, Dev. and Bat. 414. Smith v, Lowe 2, Ire. 457. McLean v. Paul 5, Ire. 22. Jackson v. Jackson 13, Ire. 159.
The other question is clearly against the defendant-, as settled in this Court by the several cases cited by plaintiffs counsel, to wit: McLean v. Moore 6, Jones 520. Skinner v. Moore 2, Dev. and Bat. 138, and Burke v. Elliott 4, Ire. 355.
There was therefore error in the opinion of his Honor.
Per Curtam., Venire de novo.