Bulluck v. . Haley

*356 Stacy, 0. J\, after stating the case: The first assignment of error cannot be sustained. Interveners in attachment may contest with the plaintiff the issue of their ownership of the property, but not the regularity of the attachment or the validity of the seizure. Feed Co. v. Feed Co., 182 N. C., 690, 109 S. E., 881; Forbis v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 403, 81 S. E., 599; Bank v. Furniture Co., 120 N. C., 475, 26 S. E., 927. The second assignment of error is equally untenable. No part of the property was sold as provided by C. S., 812. The intervener, of its own volition, after obtaining possession of the property, disposed of some of it and is now claiming the right to return the balance and pay for the part that was sold. This right was denied, in principle at least, by the decision in Saliba v. Mother Agnes, 193 N. C., 251, 136 S. E., 706. And it may be added that “it is not so nominated in the (replevin) bond.” The record as presented shows no reversible error within our appellate jurisdiction. No error.