Hamlin was not a party to the action. By *78what authority he was permitted to interpose the motion to dissolve, does not appear. There are some affidavits tending to show that he owned the lands attached. Admitting that he was the owner, he would have no right upon that ground to be heard in this way. This is well settled in the cases of Loring v. Edes, 8 Iowa 427; Whipple v. Cass, Ib. 126; Phillip v. Shelton, 6 Ib. 545.

The order dissolving the attachment is reversed.