Case Name: T. B. Roberts vs. C. B. Roberts
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1854-12
Citations: 8 Rich. 15
Docket Number: 
Parties: T. B. Roberts vs. C. B. Roberts.
Judges: O’Neall, Warblaw, Withers, Whitner, and Cloyer, JJ., concurring.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 15–16

Head Matter:
T. B. Roberts vs. C. B. Roberts.
Two judgments and Ji. fa’s of the same date were entered — one against A. B. ^ alone, and the other against A. B. and C. D,, late co-partners. The sheriff levied on and sold land, and other property of A. B.; — Meld, that the money should be applied to the execution against A. B. alone.
BEFORE GLOVER, J., AT GREENVILLE, FALL TERM, 1854.
T. B. Roberts was plaintiff in a judgment and fi. fa. against C. B. Roberts, and J. B. Betts was plaintiff in another judgment and execution against C. B. Roberts and 0. A. Pickle, who had been partners in trade. Theso judgments and executions bore the same date. Under the fi. fa. of T. B. Roberts, the sheriff levied on and sold a house and lot, and other property of C. B. Roberts; and this was a rule on the sheriff to show eause, why he should not apply the whole amount to the ji. fa. of T. B. Roberts.
His Honor held, that T. B. Roberts was entitled to the whole amount arising from the sale, and ordered the sheriff to apply the same accordingly.
The sheriff appealed on the grounds,
1. Because, from the facts before the court, the plaintiff in the case of J. B. Betts vs. Roberts & Pickle, was entitled to a part of the money in the hands of the sheriff, according to the lien of his judgment and ji. fa.
2. Because the property of C. B. Roberts, who was a defendant in the case of J. B. Betts vs. Roberts and Pickle, was bound by the judgment of the said J. B. Betts.
3. Because the order made by the presiding Judge in the rule in this case is contrary to law.
Thomson, Basly, for tbe motion.
Young, Mford, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We concur in tbe decision below, and for tbe reasons refer to Wilson & Co. vs. Bowden .
Tbe motion is dismissed.
O'Neall, Warblaw, Withers, Whitner, and Cloyer, JJ., concurring.
Munro, J., absent from indisposition.
Motion dismissed.
Ante, p. 9.