Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 S.C.L. 403

Richardson v. Whitfield

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 15, 1821

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1821-05-15

Attachment. was ati action to recover the value of a negro, purchased of the defendant. It appeared that the negro was sold for a full price, and there was some evidence of his having been unsound at the time of sale. As the defendant was absent from the state, a writ of attachment was served upon Col. Howard, who had in his possession property of the defendant.

Decided 1821-05-15

Mr. Justice Huger

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2At the trial I was unacquainted with a decision of the Constitutional Court, made at Columbia some years since, and which my Senior Brothers tell me fixed the practice in such cases. The decision has not been reported, neither is the title recollected, but the garnishee was a Mr. Silli-man. In the case alluded to, it was determined, that no proceedings were necessary to be had against the garnishee who makes no return to the attachment until judgment was had against the absent debtor. And then upon, motion, even without notice, judgment is entered up against the garnishee. As the court decided in the case of Wm. Alston, garnishee of Pinckney, not reported as I know of, that the act of the legislature making a copy writ, left at the residence of the defendant, equivalent to personal service, did not include writs of attachment, I apprehend that no inconvenience will result from dispensing with notice.

¶3A new trial is ordered.

Justices Bay-, Nott, Gantt and Johnson, concurred.
/12/scl/403 · .json · Public domain