Case Name: James H. Goss, assignee, vs. R. Gowing
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1852-05
Citations: 5 Rich. 477
Docket Number: 
Parties: James H. Goss, assignee, vs. R. Gowing.
Judges: Evans, Wardlaw, Frost, Withers and Whitner, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 477–480

Head Matter:
James H. Goss, assignee, vs. R. Gowing.
Tlie affidavit recited in a domestic attachment was, that the debtor “ absconds or conceals himself, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon him:” motion to set aside the attachment, because the affidavit should have been, in the words of the Act, that the debtor “ absconds and conceals himself,” &c: motion refused.
The affidavit on which a domestic attachment issues need not be in writing.
In domestic attachment, the summons served on the garnishee, under the I8th section of the Magistrate’s Act of 1839, need not have a copy of the note or other cause of action indorsed on or annexed to it.
Sum. pro. in domestic attachment on note assigned to plaintiff: the process had no copy of the assignment indorsed on or annexed to it: motion for leave to amend, by indorsing a copy of the assignment, — granted.
Semble, that if a copy of the note had been omitted, the defect could have been cured by amendment.
Before Frost, J. at Union, Spring Term, 1852.
The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows:
“ This was a sum. pro., by .domestic attachment, on a note. A copy of the note was not indorsed on the original or copy process. That objection having been made and sustained, leave was given to the plaintiff to amend, and a continuance granted to the defendant.
“ The process set out that the defendant absconded or concealed himself, so that the ordinary process of the law could not be served upon him. The Act of 1839 uses the word “ and ”— where in the process “ or ” is used. A motion was made to set aside the process as void, on account of this discrepancy. The motion was refused, because, if the conjunctive had been used in the process, the plaintiff would not be required to prove that the defendant both absconded and concealed himself, if he eluded the service of process. . It is the evasion of legal process by the debtor, against which a domestic attachment is given ; and it is immaterial whether such evasion is effected by absconding or concealing himself. The case is substantially well stated in the process, since it is stated according to the proof required by the Act. If the fact is, that the defendant, either by conceal ment or absconding, prevents the service of legal process, a domestic attachment may be issued, and a statement of the plaintiff’s case according to the legal effect of the Act, is sufficient and more proper than an adherence to the letter of the Act.”
The defendant appealed, on the grounds :
1. Because the affidavit recited in the attachment was insufficient to authorize the magistrate to issue the attachment, and the affidavit should have been in writing and subscribed by the plaintiff.
2. Because his Honor had not the power to grant leave to amend the process by endorsing a copy of the note sued on, and the assignment and the time when the attachment issued, and, under the circumstances of the case, the amendment should not have been allowed.
Thomson, for the rhotion.
Gadberry, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
O'Neall, J.
The first ground of appeal, when the Act of 1839 is properly understood, presents no difficulty.
The 18th section (11 Stat. 18) provides for four classes of cases, in which a magistrate may issue an attachment. 1st, where the debtor is absent from the State: 2d, where he is removing privately from the district: 3d, where he absconds and conceals himself, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon him: 4th, where the creditor has grounds to suspect and believe, and does verily believe, that such debtor intends to remove his effects. (See Lindau vs. Arnold, 4 Strob. 290).
The objection to the affidavit, set out in the attachment, is that the debtor " absconds or conceals himselfthis, it is supposed, is an alternative statement and therefore bad. It is very true, if this had been an alternative allegation of any of the four separate and distinct grounds for issuing an attachment, it would have been a just objection: but to abscond and conceal is one ground. The terms are of equivalent meaning. For to say a man absconds is to charge him with withdrawing himself privately, and necessarily imports concealment. To allege that a man absconds or conceals himself, is substantially alleging all that is required by the law, especially when followed by the words used in this attachment, " so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon him." So too, if necessary, 1 would resort to the familiar rule, by which wills are construed, that where it is necessary to carry out the intention, " or " may be construed " and." Here we might well say, it was used in the conjunctive and not in the disjunctive sense.
That the affidavit authorizing the issuing an attachment need not be in writing, is settled by the case of McKenzie vs. Buckan, (1 N. & McC. 205).
As to the 2d ground, it maybe remarked, that the 15th section of the Act of 1839, (11 Stat. 17). requires, that when a magistrate issues a summons for a matter of contract, a copy of the note, bond, book account, or other demand, shall be endorsed on or annexed to the same, and that a copy of such summons shall be served on the defendant. The object is plainly to enable a party, who is to be served, to answer to the cause of action.
In the 18th section of the same Act, the power of issuing an attachment, in the cases already pointed out, is given.
Where the demand exceeds $20, the attachment is to be directed to the sheriff, who is to levy on the goods and chattels of the defendant, and to summon any person indebted to the debtor or in possession of any of his effects. Here, it will be observed, nothing is said about a copy of the cause of action. Before 1839, a copy was never annexed even to a summons, much less to an attachment. How then can it be pretended, that a requisition for a copy on a summons extends to an attachment 1 The old law, altered in a specified case, cannot be made to extend to all others. So too, in attachment, the sheriff is to summon persons indebted to or having the defendant's goods in possession. The magistrate is not necessarily to issue summonses for such persons : the sheriff may summon them ore tenus, or by writing. If, however, the magistrate is to issue summonses for them, they have nothing to do with the cause of action : hence they have no necessity for copies on the summonses, with which they may be served. All which could be asked would be, that the copy should be on the attachment itself, so that when the debtor, the defendant, comes in to defend, he may see it, and be able to answer. The note, we are told, was copied on the attachment, and that the assignment by Wm. Goss and sons was alone omitted. We all agree, that this defect, or even the omission of the whole note and assignment, might be remedied by amendment, inasmuch as no copy of. the attachment itself need be served on any one.
The motion is dismissed.
Evans, Wardlaw, Frost, Withers and Whitner, JJ. concurred.
Motion dismissed.