Per Curiam.(1)
The court is of the opinion that the service of the writ in this case upon the insurance commissoner of Rhode Island was not a legal attachment of money in the hands of the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company of Boston, Massachusetts. See
Sheffield
v.
Barber,
14 R. I. 263.
(2)
The amendment asked for, in the absence of consent of-parties, would necessitate further service of process, and the same result was attainable by the plaintiff by the issuing of a writ of
.mesne
process, under Gen. Laws cap. 252, § 17. The motion to amend was therefore properly denied by the District Court.
Exceptions overruled, and case remanded to the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District.