Case ID: scl_11/html/0665-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gantt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John H. Durant v. William Staggers.
    A succeeding judge will not rescind an order made by a preceding judge; but where a party thinks himself aggrieved by such order, the proper manner to procure redress is by appeal.
    The Court will not set aside a judgment obtained against a garnishee, who fails to make a return, after a copy writ and a notice to make a return have been served upon him.
    
      In March Term, 1818, on application to the honorable Justice Grimke, who presided, leave was granted to the plaintiff in attachment, to cause a notice to be served upon the garnishee, requiring him to make his return to the attachment, on or before the sitting of the next Court: and allowing to the plaintiff-leave to file his declaration.
    The garnishee having failed to make such return, a motion was made, Spring Term, 1820, for leave to enter up judgment against him. Mr. Justice Gantt, who presided, allowed the plaintiff his motion.
    An appeal has been taken, and the grounds of appeal are :
    1. That no notice was annexed to the copy writ originally served upon the defendant.
    2. That Mr. Justice Grimke had, in 1818, refused to quash the writ of attachment, notwithstanding this irregularity. And,
    3. Because, in 1820, the then presiding judge liad permitted judgment to go against the garnishee.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gantt, J.

It was incumbent on the garnishee to have appealed from the decision made in March Term, 1818, if he had been dissatisfied with *4891 corl'ectness, but he acquiesced *in it, and it is neither usual nor J correct for a succeeding judge to rescind the orders made by those who have preceded him. The proper and established practice is to appeal in such cases wheze the decisions made are supposed not conformable to law.

Here the garnishee had all that the attachment law required, a copy writ and notice to make his return; and although the proceeding was not strictly conformable to the Attachment Act, yet it was substantially so; and it is too late, after so long an acquiescence in the first order, for the garnishee to complain.

The Court are of opinion, that the decision of the judge, allowing the plaintiff leave to enter up his judgment, was correct and legal; and that the motion to reverse the same must fail.

Bay, Hott, Johnson and HttgeR, JJ., concurred. 
      
       Ante, 337 ; 2 McC. 151.
     
      
       1 N. & McC. 431.
     
      
       1 N. & McC. 189, and cases there cited.