Case Name: Wm. Ellison, vs. Elizabeth Gordon; The Same, vs. The Same, as Ex'rx
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1824-11
Citations: 1 Harp. 436
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wm. Ellison, vs. Elizabeth Gordon. The Same, vs. The Same, as Ex'rx.
Judges: JVott, Colcock, and Johnson, Justices,” concurred
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 436–436

Head Matter:
Wm. Ellison, vs. Elizabeth Gordon. The Same, vs. The Same, as Ex'rx.
Proceedings m attachment. JJfter pleading to issue and cases called for trial, defendant moved to strike them from, the docket, because-declarations were filed more than two months after the^ return of the xvriis. Motion came too late; the irregularity, if any, urns waived by pleading.
Writs of attachment were issued by the plaintiff against the defendant, on the 12lb June, 1823, returnable to the following October Court, when appearances were entered. On the 28th . of the November following, declarations were filed, orders for judgment, for want of pleas, were obtained, and the cases' put on thewrit of enquiry docket. On the first day of the court following the orders* the defendant moved to have them set aside, and for leave, on pleading the general issues to, transfer the cases to the issue docket.. This motion prevailed, and th® eases were accordingly put on the issue docket. When after-wards- called for trial, the defendant’s attorney moved to- have •jftem struck from the docket, as the declarations had not been filed witlfin two months after the return ©£ the writs. This mo-don was granted by the circuit court. A motion was now submitted'to this court, to reverse that decision.
Simlcins and Ford, for motion-
--, contra-

Opinion:
The opinion of the. court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Huger.
It is unnecessary to enquire whether the declarations were filed within the time prescribed' by the act. The defendant, by pleading, had waived' his objections to the irregularity, if one existed. Had he refused to plead when he did, an application might have been made by the plaintiff for further time ter declare;, which would have been granted under the existing cir-•iuimstances of this case. The motion, in this ease must therefore prevail'.
JVott, Colcock, and Johnson, Justices," concurred