Daniels,  J. — One  of  the  grounds  upon  which  the
attachment  was  issued  was,  that  the  defendants  had
become  indebted  to  the  plaintiffs  in  the  sum  of  $12,000
and  upwards,  upon  the  sale  and  delivery  to  them
of  goods  and  merchandise,  and  they  were  also  charged
with  having  assigned,  disposed  of  and  secreted  their
property  with  intent  to  defraud  their  creditors.  The
grounds  for  the  attachment  were  controverted  by  the
affidavits  presented  on  behalf  of  the  defendants.  It
was  stated  that  the  goods  had  been  sold  upon  a  credit
of  four  months,  which,  at  the  time  when  the  attach-
ment was  issued,  had  not  expired  ;  and  to  answer  that
statement,  affidavits  were  produced  on  behalf  of  the
plaintiffs  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  debt  had  been
fraudulently  contracted,  and  for  that  reason  the  de-
fendants had  deprived  themselves  of  their  right  to
insist  upon  the  credit.
70  CIVIL    PROCEDURE    REPORTS.
Vie  tor  o.  Henlein.
If  the  plaintiffs  were  right  in  the  answer  made  to
this  objection,  then  the  terms  of  the  credit  were  not
binding  npon  them,  but  they  were  at  liberty  to
[*]  bring  their  action  for  the  recovery  of  the  purchase-
price  of  their  goods  in  the  same  manner  as  though
no  agreement  for  any  period  of  credit  had  been  made
(Weigand  v.  Sichel,  3  KeyeSj  120 ;  Claflin  «,  Toussig,
7  Sun^  225  ;  Arnold  v.  Shapiro,  29  Id.  478  ;  Nelson  v.
