16 S.C.L. 437
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided November 15, 1824
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1824-11-15
This was a summary process, brought on -the following assignment of a single bill or sealed note, given by William Kerr ■to Alexander Miller, the defendant, ■“ May the 9th; 1822, forvaiue received.” “ i indorse the-.within note to James Wilson, which note if not good 1 promise to make good.” Signed, “A. Mill-sfSr.” The plaintiff bad .sued William Kerr, ¡the obligor of the sealed note, recovered a judgment, and had a fi. fa. issued, on which there was a return of nulla bona.
Decided 1824-11-15
¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by
¶2In 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.