Bates, Reed & Cooley v. Killian & Bros.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Aldrich, J., Greenville, January, 1882. This was a motion made by defendants at Pickens to have certain attachments upon their property, under proceedings in Greenville, vacated. The motion was supported by affidavits and was based upon the following grounds: 1st. Because the affidavit on which said attachment was issued was insufficient. 2d.
Read the full summary
Before Aldrich, J., Greenville, January, 1882. This was a motion made by defendants at Pickens to have certain attachments upon their property, under proceedings in Greenville, vacated. The motion was supported by affidavits and was based upon the following grounds: 1st. Because the affidavit on which said attachment was issued was insufficient. 2d. Because the allegations of fraud, or that the defendants had disposed of, secreted or concealed, or were disposing of, secreting and concealing, their property with intent to defraud their creditors, contained in said affidavit, are not true. 3d.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Simpson.
The plaintiffs, appellants, in an action for the recovery of $1942.53, alleged by plaintiffs to be due them from the defendants, attached certain property of the defendants, consisting of a stock of goods. The defendants applied under § 264 of the code for the surrender of the goods, which upon the execution of the bond required by § 265 of the code was ordered, and the property thereby discharged from the lien of the attachment. Two other attachments were afterwards issued, one of which was by the plaintiff.
Subsequently, the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Barry v. FoylesSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Paddock v. MatthewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1853
- Pailhes v. RouxSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1839
- Payne v. SnellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- Harrison v. MorrisDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1974