Wilson v. Miller

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Wilson v. Miller

16 S.C.L. 437

DecidedNovember 15, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 16 S.C.L. 437 (Wilson v. Miller) 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

Wilson v. Miller, 16 S.C.L. 437 (S.C. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mr. Justice -Huger.

In the case of Eddings and Glasscock; 1 N. and M'C 295, it was only decided that a nulla bona was not sufficient to ,es4 tablish the insolvency of the defendant. It has never been; ruled that a ca. sa. with a return of non est inventus, was necessary to prove insolvency. In all cases satisfactory proof must; be adduced; but other proof than a ca. sa. may be sufficient to established the insolvency. A new trial is therefore granted.

Mott, Johnson, Colcock and Richardson, Justices, concurred.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mr. Justice -Huger.

In the case of Eddings and Glasscock; 1 N. and M'C 295, it was only decided that a nulla bona was not sufficient to ,es4 tablish the insolvency of the defendant. It has never been; ruled that a ca. sa. with a return of non est inventus, was necessary to prove insolvency. In all cases satisfactory proof must; be adduced; but other proof than a ca. sa. may be sufficient to established the insolvency. A new trial is therefore granted.

Mott, Johnson, Colcock and Richardson, Justices, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.C.L. 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-miller-sc-1824.