Case ID: scl_39/html/0427-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia, per O’Neall, J. Wardlaw, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte John F. Ridgill.
    
    
      A debtor who was arrested under mesne process and gave bail, and who procured his bail to surrender him, may take the benefit of the insolvent debtors’ Act.
    The form of the oath of an insolvent debtor, as given in Miller’s Comp. 172, approved, and certain words directed to be added where the applicant has been rendered in discharge of his bail.
    
      Before O’Neall, J. at Sumter, Spring Term, 1852.
    The petitioner, John F: Ridgill, applied for the benefit of the insolvent debtors’ Act.
    He was examined by the plaintiff in execution, and stated that he was surrendered by his uncle and brother, who were his bail: — that a letter was written by the then sheriff, Mr. Skinner, advising them to surrender the prisoner; that he, the petitioner, copied and carried the letter to them ; that he took with him a prison bounds’ bond, which he and they executed, and which he brought back with him : — that he was thus surrendered by his bail, and applied for the insolvent debtors’ Act.
    His Honor held he could not take the oath required by law, and therefore refused the application.
    The petitioner appealed.
    
      Blanding, for appellant.
    
      Moses, contra.
   Curia, per O’Neall, J.

In this matter I think I was in error in holding, that the prisoner, who had procured his bail to surrender him, could not take the oath under the insolvent debtors’ Act.

The terms of the oath, if looked to alone, would exclude him: but the 12th section of the Act, which was not brought to my attention, expressly provides for the case of one surrendering himself.

The same thing is repeated in the 6th section of the prison bounds’ Act.

These provisions clearly shew, that if, in other respects, the prisoner complied with the law, he was entitled to his discharge.

It is, however, necessary to modify the oath, so as to adapt it to this state of things.

The oath as given in Miller’s Comp. 172, is approved, and it is only necessary in the case of a surrender by bail, or by the party in discharge of his bail, after the word “ procurement ” to insert the words, “ in your caption and detention under and by virtue of the bail writ, in the case of A. B. vs. yourself.”

In this case, as the plaintiffs may have other grounds to allege against the prisoner’s discharge, it is ordered that his application be remanded to the Circuit Court for Sumter district, and that the plaintiffs, at whose suit he is confined, have leave to file such suggestion as they may choose, contesting his schedule or setting out other objections to his discharge at any time within thirty days before the session of the next Court.

Evans, Frost, Withers and Whitner, JJ. concurred.

Wardlaw, J.

I concur in the result, but see no reason for any change of the oath.

Motion granted.