See Wm. Cameron Co. v. Abbott (Tex.) 258 S.W. and the cases cited relative to this question; Atoka Milling Co. v. Groomer, 131 Okla. 58. 268 P. 208. The court heard evidence on the motion to quash prior to trial of said cause.

1. Attachment — Invalidity Where Property Seized on Sunday Outside County and Forcibly Brought into County. Paragraph 1 of the syllabus in Atoka Milling Co. v. Groomer, No. 18141, just decided (May 29, 1928) 131 Okla. 58, 268 P. 208, is made paragraph 1 of the syllabus herein. 2.

It is a well-settled rule of law, both in this and other states, that a court will not lend its jurisdiction to a plaintiff where the service upon a defendant has been obtained by inveigling a person to be served into the territorial jurisdiction of the court by means of fraud and deceit, actual or legal, or by trick or device or illegal act; and it makes no difference whether the device is used to obtain jurisdiction of the person or the property of a person. Atoka Milling Co. v. Groomer, 131 Okla. 58, 268 P. 208; Kelly v. Citizens Farmers Nat. Bank of Chickasha, 174 Okla. 380, 50 P.2d 734: Rozencranz v. Swafford Bros., 175 Mo. 518, 75 S.W. 445, 97 Am. St. Rep. 609; Van Horn v. Great Western Mfg. Co. (Kan.) 15 P. 562; Townsend v. Smith (Wis.) 3 N.W. 439; Sessoms Groc. Co. v. International Sugar Feed Co. (Ala.) 66 So. 479; Pakas v. Steel Ball Co., 68 N.Y.S. 397; Siro v. American Express Co. (Conn.) 121 A. 280; Ultcht v. Ultcht (N.J. Eq.) 126 A. 440; Ilsley v. Nichols, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 270, 22 Am. Dec. 425; Deyo v. Jennison (Mass.) 10 Allen, 410; Chubbuck v. Cleveland (Minn.