Case Name: Waller B. Meriwether vs. The Bank of Hamburg, S. C.; William A. Young vs. The Same. The Bank of Hamburg, S. Carolina, ads. Wm. A. Young. The Same ads. R. R. Hunter. The Same ads. W. B. Meriwether. The Same ads. Waller B. Meriwether
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1837-12
Citations: 1 Dud. 36
Docket Number: 
Parties: Waller B. Meriwether vs. The Bank of Hamburg, S. C. William A. Young vs. The Same. The Bank of Hamburg, S. Carolina, ads. Wm. A. Young. The Same ads. R. R. Hunter. The Same ads. W. B. Meriwether. The Same ads. Waller B. Meriwether.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 36–37

Head Matter:
Waller B. Meriwether vs. The Bank of Hamburg, S. C. William A. Young vs. The Same. The Bank of Hamburg, S. Carolina, ads. Wm. A. Young. The Same ads. R. R. Hunter. The Same ads. W. B. Meriwether. The Same ads. Waller B. Meriwether.
In order to make a Bank a party to a suit, it is sufficient to serve a process on the President and Cashier; and in default of appearance, judgment will be given, as in cases against individuals.
BEFORE GANTT, J., AT EDGEFIELD, FALL TERM, 1837.
The first two of these oases were summary processes against the"Bank as a body politic; and the last three were appeals from the judgments of a Magistrate against the Bank. In all of them, the only service upon the Bank was by delivering copies of the processes and summonses to the President and Cashier; and in none of them did the Bank appear by attorney regularly constituted. ' A motion was made on behalf of the Bank to strike the first two cases from the docket, and to set aside the judgments of the Magistrate in the last three cases, because there was no appearance in any of them, as the proper foundation of judgments. This motion was overruled, and decrees were entered in the first two cases, and the judgments affirmed in the last three.
Notice of appeal was given, on the ground that the Bank had not been properly made a party to the proceedings.
Wardlaw, for appellant.
Gray, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, per Evans.
The service of process in these cases, was by delivery of copies to the President and. Casbier of the Bank, which, it is alleged, is insufficient. If I understand the ground on which it is moved to reverse the decision of the Circuit Court, it is that no judgment can be pronounced against the Bank, until an appearance has been entered by an attorney appointed under the seal of the corporation. This is clearly the English practice, as laid down both in Tidd and Sellon. There, if the corporation does not appear, the plaintiff must proceed by distringas to coerce appearance: because, by their practice, so far as I can understand, the plaintiff cannot proceed until defendant has appeared — and if he does not voluntary appear, the plaintiff is authorized to enter an appearance for him, by the Stat. of 12 Geo. 1, c. 29. This Statute does not extend to corporations: .hence, the practice still continues of compelling an appearance by distraining their goods. By our practice, it is immaterial whether the defendant appears or not. If he does not, the plaintiff may proceed to file his declaration and take judgment by default. Corporations are artificial bodies, usually vested with the same rights of suing, and subjected to be sued like natural persons. They are represented by their officers and are made parties in Court by serving their officers with copies of the process. This was done in these cases, and so far as I am informed, has been the uniform practice in this State Even a sovereign State was made a party in the Federal Court by serving a copy of the writ on the Governor of the State and the Attorney General. This was the course pursued in the case of Chisolm vs. The State of Georgia, reported in Dallas, and the Court proceeded to give judgment, notwithstanding the refusal of Georgia to appear:
The motion is dismissed.