¶1While we, in the main, agree entirely with the appellant’s contention regarding the law, yet we do not find that the facts quite meet the requirements necessary to bring the authorities cited effectually to bear upon the question of this appeal, which is, whether, or not, the papers were insufficient because facts were not shown which made a specific sum due to the plaintiffs, over and above all counterclaims.
¶2We find the case at bar even stronger in fundamental facts than Lawton v. Reil, 34 How. Pr. 465; for here the means were furnished by the papers themselves to compute the exact amount of damage claimed by plaintiffs.
¶3Order must he affirmed, with costs and disbursements to respondents.
¶4Conlan , J., concurs.
¶5I dissent. The proof failed to show that, at the time the attachment was issued, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the sum of $960, as damages for their wrongful discharge.
¶6• Order should be reversed and motion granted, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
¶7Order affirmed, with costs to respondents.