Wichman v. Fox

• Decision Date: 28 September 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 8951.)
• Parties: WICHMAN . v. FOX et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

82 S.E. 1014

(99 S.C. 105)

WICHMAN .

v.FOX et al.

(No. 8951.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Sept. 28, 1914.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; J. W. De Vore, Judge.

Action by R. H. Wichman, doing business under the style and trade-name of A. Wichman & Son, against J. R. Fox and another. From an order of the judge of the circuit court refusing to dissolve an attachment, the defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.

See, also, 96 S. C. 469, 81 S. E. 180.

W. A. Holrnan and F. M. Bryan, both of Charleston, for appellants.

Howell & Gruber, of Walterboro, for respondent.

FRASER, J. The appellants state their case as follows:

"This is an appeal from an order of his honor, Judge J. W. De Vore, refusing to dissolve an attachment issued on the ground that the defendants were about to dispose of, or had disposed of, the property belonging to them with the purpose and intention of defeating or defrauding their creditors, and especially plaintiff; the ground for the motion to dissolve being that no facts or circumstances were stated from which it could be inferred that defendants were acting or had acted as they were charged with doing. There are five exceptions, but these exceptions raise practically two points: First, that the affidavit on which the attachment was issued did not state facts or circumstances sufficient to authorize its issuance", and second, because the undertaking which was given to secure said attachment was not properly executed."

The affidavit upon which the attachment issued alleged: That the plaintiff was the assignee of three notes of J. R. Fox and S. J. Fox; one due on 1st January, 1911, and there was due thereon $497.20, and no part thereof has been paid; the second note was due on 1st November, 1911, and there was due thereon $549.19, no part of which had been paid; the third promissory note due on 1st December, 1911, and there was due thereon $547.83. That in April, 1912, the defendant conveyed a tract of land worth $10,000 or $12,000 to two of her children for $10. That J. R. Fox had no property, and S. J. Fox had no other property except a house and lot of small value. That suit was brought on said notes and the defendant allowed her time to answer to go by without putting in an answer. That the defendants were allowed to answer on condition that they execute a bond to pay any judgment that should be obtained and the failure to execute the bond. On these facts the plaintiff asks for an attachment.

It seems that...