McDaniel v. Stokes
| Decision Date | 13 March 1883 |
| Parties | MCDANIEL v. STOKES. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
1. An exception in the words " that the order is unauthorized by any statute or law in South Carolina," is really no exception at all.
2. Continuances are within the discretion of the Circuit judge.
3. After return of execution unsatisfied, the court may, under proper proceedings, require money in its hands, belonging to the defendant, to be applied to the payment of the debt.
Before ALDRICH, J., Greenville, April, 1882.
The case is fully stated in the opinion of this court.
Mr. E. F. Stokes , for himself, appellant.
Mr. D. P. Verner , contra.
As settled by the judge, the facts were as follows: On January 10th, 1881, J. G. Hawthorne, Esq., a trial justice for the county of Greenville, issued a summons against the defendant Edward F. Stokes, requiring him to answer the complaint of W B. McDaniel, plaintiff, claiming judgment for $58.20 for printing a brief. The defendant was served on January 17th, but he failed to appear on the day named for trial, February 26th; and on that day the trial justice gave judgment for the plaintiff, and issued a transcript of said judgment, which was filed in the clerk's office, and execution issued thereon. On April 1st, 1882, the sheriff returned the execution " wholly unsatisfied."
On April 4th, 1882, D. P. Verner, attorney for the plaintiff, made affidavit that the judgment had been duly rendered in the action by a trial justice against the defendant for $58.20 and costs, a transcript of which had been duly docketed in the office of the clerk of the court, and execution issued thereon; that the said execution had been returned by the sheriff wholly unsatisfied, and was still unsatisfied; and that Samuel J. Douthit, Esq., master of the court for said county, had money of the defendant in his hands exceeding the amount of ten dollars. Upon the filing of this affidavit, Judge Aldrich, presiding judge at Greenville, passed an order requiring the defendant, Stokes, to show cause, on April 8th, 1882, why the master should not be required to pay the said judgment and costs out of funds in his hands belonging to the defendant, and directed the order, with a copy of the above affidavit, to be served upon the defendant, which was done.
On April 11th, 1882, the defendant was not in court, and had filed no return to the rule to show cause. He declined to come into court on account of indisposition, and having given him notice that he could not continue the case, the judge, on reaching the case, granted an order requiring the master to pay the judgment, $58.20, and the costs of the proceedings out of money in his hands belonging to the defendant. From this order the...
To continue reading
Request your trial