Eddings v. Glascock

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Eddings v. Glascock

10 S.C.L. 295

DecidedNovember 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 10 S.C.L. 295 (Eddings v. Glascock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eddings v. Glascock, 10 S.C.L. 295 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by.

Colcock, J.

The terms of this endorsement are very clear and express, and the plaintiff was bound by them to prove that the money could not be made out of Allen Elliott. The production of the execution, and the return of nulla bona, are by no means satisfactory evidence of this. A man may be rich, and yet have no property which a sheriff can reach ; nay, he) may have property about him constantly, money in his pocket, which cannot be touched by the sheriff, when, if a ca. sa. were served on him, he might be compelled to pay the debt. Suppose the case of a man, residing in a neighboring district or State, sued in Edgefield — *the sheriff cannot cross the line and levy his execution; and this appeared to be a case of this character.

In the ease of Walker v. -, decided in Chester, at the-sitting, it was determined that the return of nulla bona was no evidence of insolvency ; for the same reasons, it will not be considered in this case as evidence of an incapacity to pay. #

The motion is therefore discharged.

Cheves, Gantt and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

8 Rich.. 436; Harp. 438.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by.

Colcock, J.

The terms of this endorsement are very clear and express, and the plaintiff was bound by them to prove that the money could not be made out of Allen Elliott. The production of the execution, and the return of nulla bona, are by no means satisfactory evidence of this. A man may be rich, and yet have no property which a sheriff can reach ; nay, he) may have property about him constantly, money in his pocket, which cannot be touched by the sheriff, when, if a ca. sa. were served on him, he might be compelled to pay the debt. Suppose the case of a man, residing in a neighboring district or State, sued in Edgefield — *the sheriff cannot cross the line and levy his execution; and this appeared to be a case of this character.

In the ease of Walker v. -, decided in Chester, at the-sitting, it was determined that the return of nulla bona was no evidence of insolvency ; for the same reasons, it will not be considered in this case as evidence of an incapacity to pay. #

The motion is therefore discharged.

Cheves, Gantt and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

8 Rich.. 436; Harp. 438.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.C.L. 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddings-v-glascock-sc-1818.