Childs v. Bolton
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Gary, J., Spartanburg, September, 1903. Action by Mary E. Childs against Nannie E. Bolton. From order dissolving attachment, plaintiff appeals. cite: Defendant cannot move to vacate attachment because property does not belong to her: 25 S. C., 467; 17 S. C., 116, 120. Defendant has an interest in money attached: Code 1902, 2852. Mr. McGhee cites: Attachment was improvidently issued: 31 S. C., 369. As to the disposition of the fund: Code 1902, 2852.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice; Gary.
This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment. The motion .to> dissolve the attachment was made on the grounds “that the same was improvidently issued, and for other just and sufficient reasons.”
The appellant’s first exception is as follows:
1 “I. Because his Honor erred in not holding that the defendant, Nannie E. Bolton, was not the proper person to make this motion, for the reason, that the statute provides the mode by which third parties may assert their claim to the property attached, and the defendant had no right to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Olin Mann, as Administrator of the Estate of Dale Galloway, Deceased v. Bowman Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1962
- Hutchison v. York CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910