Case Name: James Cannady vs. Odum & Matheny; S. H. Condict & Co. vs. The same
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1846-05
Citations: 2 Rich. 527
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Cannady vs. Odum & Matheny. S. H. Condict & Co. vs. The same.
Judges: O’Neall, Evans and Frost, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 527–529

Head Matter:
James Cannady vs. Odum & Matheny. S. H. Condict & Co. vs. The same.
Where there are conflicting claims to money in the sheriff’s hands, the court will not interfere by attachment, to compel him to pay it over to one of the claimants.
Before Evans, J. at Barnwell, Spring Term, 1846.
These were rules on the sheriff, requiring him to shew cause why he had not paid over money in his hands to the plaintiffs’ executions. The money arose from the sale of the individual property of Odum. There were executions enough against him to take it all. There were certain proceedings among the parties in equity, in which the question had been made, whether the individual creditors were not entitled to be paid out of the funds, in preference to the copartnership creditors 7 His Honor’s own judgment was, that at law the money in the sheriff’s hands should be paid, without reference to the copartnership, according to the priority of lien, but as the matter had been brought into controversy in the court of equity, he refused to interfere, and dismissed the rule.
The plaintiffs appealed, and now renewed their motions to make the rules absolute.
Bellinger, for the motion.
Patterson, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, per RichardsoN, J.
Attachment against the sheriff, presupposes a contempt of the court. It follows, of course, that before so summary and coercive a remedy is adopted, there must be an apparent contempt; and then, by modern practice, attachment may be used as a remedy, in order to enforce a claim of justice. This meaning and object of the attachment against sheriffs has been often laid down; as an instance, see the case of Dawkins vs. Pearson, 2 Bail. 619. In that case, the attachment which had been ordered was set aside, because there were different claimants for the money in the sheriff's hands. The case before the court is of the same very common occurrence of conflicting claims ; in which the parties become impatient. But still they must be left to the common remedy, by action, or issue made up to determine their respective rights by jury, &e. This is our well established practice, in order to avoid the possible perversion of the imaginary Judge, who first punished the accused as a wholesome thing, and then more calmly heard and decided in a regular way upon his merits, as a thing due to justice. The decision on the circuit was, therefore, right, and the motion is dismissed.
O'Neall, Evans and Frost, JJ. concurred.