Wagner, 16 Or. 433, 18 Pac. Rep. 842; Myers v. Smith, 29 Ohio St. 123; Paddock v. Matthews, 3 Mich. 23; Endress v. Ent, 18 Kan. 236; Bank v. Mixter, 124, U. 8. 728, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 718; McCombs v. Allen, 82 N. Y. 117; Carpenter v. Turrell, 100 Mass. 450; Barry v. Foyles, 1 Pet. 314; Inman v. Strattan, 4 Bush, 445; Hazelrigg v. Donaldson, 2 Metc. (Ky.) 445; McAllister v. Eichengreen, 34 Md. 54. The Arkansas cases we have seen are not in point, and are opposed to the latest decisions of that court under new statutes very similar to those of our state. In Louisiana, the statute, as we have seen, provided for only a releasing of the property, and not the discharge of the attachment on the giving of a bond, and the cases from that state, are, therefore, foreign to the question involved. Two decisions from New York are cited, (Garbutt v. Hanff, 15 Abb. Pr. 189; Claflin v. Baere, 57 How. Pr. 78,) which appear to sustain appellant’s view, but the court of appeals in that state in quite a recent case has ruled that the discharge bond destroyed the attachment, (McCombs v. Allen, 82 N. Y. 114)
It is true that the precise question presented by this appeal was not before that court, but both the decision and the language of the court sustain the holding of the court below in-the case at bar. Defendant, having discharged an attachment by rebonding, went into bankruptcy within four months after the time when the attachment was issued. The bankruptcy act under such circumstances destroyed the attachment. In an action on the bond, it was contended that the bond was a mere substitute for the writ, and that, the bankruptcy proceedings having annihilated the attachment, the bond also was swept away. But the court held that there was no attachment existing after defendant had rebonded upon which the bankruptcy act could exert its force, saying: "There was no attachment lien nor any attachment in force upon which such proceedings could operate, and this fact is conclusive against the defendants." The same decision was made in Carpenter v. Turrell, 100 Mass. 450, and in Hill v. Harding, 93 Tl. 80. The case in 4 Hill, 598, (in re Faulkner,) was a case of void attachment, because the affidavit on which it was founded was insufficient on its face. Bruce v. Conyers, 54 Ga. 679, belongs to the same class, as is
