Reily v. Middleton

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Reily v. Middleton

23 S.C.L. 21

DecidedDecember 15, 1837

StatusPublished

This text of 23 S.C.L. 21 (Reily v. Middleton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reily v. Middleton, 23 S.C.L. 21 (S.C. Ct. App. 1837).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per Evans, J.

It is clear the domestic attachment Act of 1785, does not authorize the attaching of books of account. Independently of what would seem to be the. meaning of that Act, the question was expressly decided in Ohors vs. Hill, 3 McC., 338. The plaintiff in the first case above stated, issued a foreign attachment, under which the books of account of the absent debtor might be seized. He is entitled to have them delivered to him that be may collect the debts due to, the absent debtor. The decision of the circuit judge in refusing an order to that effect, was erroneous —and the motion is granted.

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

Curia, per Evans, J.

It is clear the domestic attachment Act of 1785, does not authorize the attaching of books of account. Independently of what would seem to be the. meaning of that Act, the question was expressly decided in Ohors vs. Hill, 3 McC., 338. The plaintiff in the first case above stated, issued a foreign attachment, under which the books of account of the absent debtor might be seized. He is entitled to have them delivered to him that be may collect the debts due to, the absent debtor. The decision of the circuit judge in refusing an order to that effect, was erroneous —and the motion is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 S.C.L. 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reily-v-middleton-scctapp-1837.