As to the appeal from the order denying a motion to dissolve the writ of attachment issued in the above entitled action, it appears that the ground of the motion was that the writ of attachment issued for a greater amount than that stated in the affidavit. Assuming that this was true, in which event the motion would be well founded ( Finch v. McVean, 6 Cal.App. 272, [ 91 P. 1019]; O'Conor v. Roark, 108 Cal. 173, [41 P. 465]), still, as the court, under the terms of section 558 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1909, permitted an amendment of the writ which made it and the affidavit therefor agree in amount, and as we think in so doing the court acted within the authority vested in it by that section, it follows that its order cannot be disturbed. Taking up the last point made by defendant, we think it equally clear that a contract of guaranty is a contract "for the direct payment of money."
No indebtedness not covered by the affidavit can be included in that for which the writ issues. There is nothing in O'Connor v. Roark, 108 Cal. 173, [41 P. 465], in conflict with the view here taken. In the statement of the contract in the affidavit for an attachment in that case there appeared the date of maturity of the obligation upon which the attachment rested, and the amount stated would be presumed to draw the legal rate of seven per cent from that date.