Case Name: SUMMERTON LIVE STOCK CO. v. EARLY
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1918-08-15
Citations: 111 S.C. 154
Docket Number: 10071
Parties: SUMMERTON LIVE STOCK CO. v. EARLY.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
10071
SUMMERTON LIVE STOCK CO. v. EARLY.
(96 S. E. 518.)
Attachment — Undertakings — Signing by Plaintiff. — The written undertaking required by the statute in attachment is insufficient when-not signed by the plaintiff, but only by another party as surety before issuance of warrant.
Before SeasE, J., Clarendon,-term, ■ — —.
Reversed.
Action by the Summerton Live Stock Company against M. M. Early. Erom an order refusing a motion to set aside an attachment, defendant appeals.
Mr. Marion W. Seabrook, for appellant,
submits: Thai the written 'undertaking required by statute in attachment is insufficient when not signed by the plaintiff, but only by another person as surety before issuance of warrant: Code of Procedure (1912), sec. 282; 31 S. C. 360; 9 S. E. 1028; 55 S. C. 547; 33 S. E. 581; 31 S. C. 375. As to the claim of respondent to have jurisdiction of the appellant by reason of serving the papers on one T. L. McLean, alleging him to have been an agent of the appellant: Code of Procedure (1912), sec. 300; 95 U. S. 714; 24 L. Ed. 565; 173 U. S. 193; 19 S. Ct., 43 L. Ed. 665; 110 Ü. S. 151; 149 U. S. 194;-119 U. S. 185; 19 Wall., 58 L. Ed. 70; 10 Wall. 308;. 32 Enc. 466; Code of Procedure (1912), sec. 184.
Mr. J. J. Cantey, for respondent,
cites: As to the service of the papers: Code of Procedure (1912), sec. 184; 24 S. C. 507. As to plaintiff signing the undertaking after issuance-of warrant: 50 S. C. 192; Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 224;: 73 S. C. 422; 103 S. C. 183; 5 Mont. 549; 10 Abb. N. Y. 424; 24 Okla. 295; 6 Utah 139; 5 Dillon 188; 63 Mich. 105..
August 15, 1918.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. ChieeJustice Gary.
This is an appeal from an order refusing a motion to set aside an attachment, on the ground that the written undertaking required by the statute was not signed by the plaintiff, but only by another party as surety, before the warrant was issued.
There were no' facts showing that the principle announced in the following cases is not applicable to the cause under consideration: Bank v. Stelling, 31 S. C. 360, 9 S. E. 1028; Wagener v. Booker, 31 S. C. 375, 9 S. E. 1055; Booker v. Smith, 38 S. C. 228, 16 S. E. 774; Hampton v. Bogan, 55 S. C. 547, 33 S. E. 581.
Reversed.