Case Name: Lowe, administrator, vs. Ramsay L. Mayson
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1825-04
Citations: 3 McCord 313
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lowe, administrator, vs. Ramsay L. Mayson.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Lowe, administrator, vs. Ramsay L. Mayson.
The affidavit of an Administrator, to hold a defendant to bail, stated “ that nales were found” among his intestates papers, “ by which it appeared that defendant was indebted &c. §1700:” The court held that it was unnecessary to set out how many notes, or their dates,or to give any further discription of them.
In- this case, a/motion was made to discharge the order for- bail, upon the alleged insufficiency of the plaintiffs . -affidavit, which was in the following words viz':
“ Personally came Henry W. Lowe, surviving admi= aistrator of Archy Mayson, deceased, who swears that notes were found among the papers of the said Archy Mayson, by which it appears that Ramsay. L. Mayson. is indebted to the said ’ Archy Mayson’s estate, twenty-seven hundred' dollars and eighty-eight cents, and so far as this deponent' knows and believes, the said Ramsay L. Mayson. has not paid to the said Archy Mayson, during his life time, the said:sum off money, or any part thereof, and this deponent swears, that the said Ramsay L. Mayson, hath not paid the said sum, or any part thereof to this'deponent*as; adihin'istrator;
Henry W. Loioe.,r
His Honor-Judge Huger sustained the defendánts motion, on-the ground that'the above affidavit'was not sufficiently definite and certain, not having set forth the number of notes, which were sued on, with their respective dates.
This was-a motion to the court of appeals to reverse his decision.
M’Dvffie & Terry, for the motion.
Butler & Thompson, contra.

Opinion:
Johnson J.
There is no doubt about the existente and necessity of the rule which requires that an affidavit to hold the defendant to bail must show how the cause of action* arose (Seethe decision of (he court in the case of Peck vs. Van Evur, 1 Nott & M'Cord 580.) It is necessary, to enable the court to judge whether the action has any legal foundation, or exists only in the imagination of the plaintiff, and to protect the defendant from the consequences of perjury, as is illustrated by the case referred to.
The affidavit in this case sets out, in general terms, the manner in which the debt arose, as far as the plaintiff can be supposed to be conversant with it; and if we regard the reasons of the rule, tire objects are as fully attained, as if-the notes had.boen recited with the utmost minuteness. Neither the dates or the number of the notes would enable the court to judge of their legal efficacy. And if the plaintiff has committed a perjury, the offence can as well be assigned on this affidavit, as if it had contained them ; so that the whole object of the rule has been attained.
Motion .granted,
An affidavit, "in so much on a bond for performance of covenants," or " upon breach of articles," is too general. (Tidd 157.) In the case of Humphries vs. Williams, (2 Marshall's Rep. 231,) an affidavit that defendant was indebted to the plaintiff, "as the indorsee of a certain bill of exchange drawn by one T. W. at a certain day now past,", without stating how the defendant, became liable, whether as acceptor, or indorser, was too general. So in Balbi vs. Batley, (1 Marsh. 424,) the court held that an affidavit,, which stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff on promissory notes of the defendant, without stating how the plaintiff became entitled to recover upon them, was defective. See Bradshaw vs. Saddington,7 East 94 and Ib 694, See the forms in Tidd's Appendix,