Joseph McKenna

“ We think not. 'To have the property of the defendant attached' was construed to mean the issuance of the attachment, and it was held to be a nullity, if done before the summons was issued. If, however, ambiguity could arise under the practice act and the Code of Civil Procedure as originally passed, it could not arise after the Code was amended in 1874, and as it existed at the time or the Arizona enactment of 1891. At that time the issuance of summons was not the commencement of the action. ”

“ Paragraph 649 provides that 'all civil suits in courts of record shall be commenced by complaint filed in the office of the clerk of such court.' Therefore, if paragraph 42 (section 3) was in force at the time the writ of attachment was issued, to wit, on the 24th of December, 1894, there is no doubt of the validity of the writ. But it is contended that the paragraph was not in force, bec use, it is claimed, it had been repealed by an act passed by the legislative assembly of the territory, approved March 6, 1891. ”

“ That the defendant is not a resident of the territory, or is a foreign corporation, or is acting as such; or,
' (3) That he is about to remove permanently out of the territory, and has refused to pay or secure the debt due the plaintiff; or,
' (4) That he secretes himself, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served on him; or,
' (5) That he has secreted his property, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors; or,
' (6) That he is about to secrete his property for the purpose of defrauding his creditors ”