Case Name: Rosa D. Schultz, executrix, vs. M. E. Carter and others
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1845-03
Citations: 1 Rich. Eq. 280
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rosa D. Schultz, executrix, vs. M. E. Carter and others.
Judges: Signed by Johnson, Hauper and Dunkin, CC.
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 280–282

Head Matter:
Rosa D. Schultz, executrix, vs. M. E. Carter and others.
An attachment cannot issue to compel a female to pay the amount of a money decree.
Before Dunkin, Ch. at Charleston, February, 1845.
In obedience to a decree made in this case in June, 1843, (for which see the report of this case in Speers Bq. 533,) references were held before Edward R. Laurens, one of the Masters, who reported, inter alia, that the account of the complainant as executrix showed a balance of assets in her hands of four thousand eight hundred and seventy-five dollars sixty-seven cents. In June, 1844, the report of the Master was, in this respect, confirmed by Chancellor Johnson, who “ordered and decreed that the complainant do pay into the hands of Mr. Laurens, one of the Masters,” the said sum of money, “ being the amount to be accounted for by the complainant as executrix of Wade H. Schultz deceased.”
The complainant failed to pay the amount of the decree, and this was a motion, made on the return of a rule to shew cause, for an attachment to compel the complainant to pay the amount of the decree.
The Chancellor. — This is a motion for an attachment against Mrs. Schultz. A money decree has been obtained against her as the executrix of her deceased husband. It was alleged by the actors, that she had no property out of which the money might be levied by the ordinary process of a fieri facias. This proceeding is analagous to a capias ad satisfaciendum at law, and is a substitute for it.
By the Act of 1824 it is declared, “that no female shall hereafter be liable to be arrested by any writ of capias ad satisfaciendum.” It seems to the court that this is a clear indication of the will of the legislature, that no female should be imprisoned on final process, to enforce the payment of money, and that this court should follow the law.
The motion is discharged.
The defendants appealed, on the ground :—
That the Act of 1824, abolishing the writ of capias ad sa-tisfaciendum as to females, does not apply, nor was intended to apply, to the process of contempt in the Court of Chancery to compel performance of its decrees, and that the silence of that Act, in relation to such process, is a clear indication of the intention of the legislature not to interfere with the same.
H. A. DeSaussere and Yeadon, for the motion.
Crafts, contra.
6 Stat. 237.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We concur in the decree of the circuit court. Appeal dismissed.
Signed by Johnson, Hauper and Dunkin, CC.