Case Name: J. Tucker, and others, vs. Thomas D. Condy, Ex'or; W. G. De Saussure, Adm'n., vs. same
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1855-01
Citations: 7 Rich. Eq. 281
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. Tucker, and others, vs. Thomas D. Condy, Ex’or, W. G. De Saussure, Adm’n., vs. same.
Judges: DüNKIN, Dargan and Wardlaw, CC., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 281–282

Head Matter:
J. Tucker, and others, vs. Thomas D. Condy, Ex’or, W. G. De Saussure, Adm’n., vs. same.
The assets of a deceased debtor are distributable among his creditors with reference to the rank of their demands at the time of his death; and this order will not be disturbed so as to give preference to the first creditor who obtains judgment against the executor.
BEFOSE JOHNSTON, OH., AT OHAELESTON, MARCH, 1854.
The second of these cases was a creditor’s bill, in which the plaintiff (no other creditor having come in) obtained by consent, in June, 1853, a decree for about $26,000 on two bonds of defendant’s testator — the decree to be paid at the rate of $2000 annually until the whole amount should be paid. The bill first stated was also filed by bond creditors to a large amount of the testator: it alleged that the assets of the testator were insufficient to pay his debts; and prayed, inter alia, that the plaintiff in the second case be enjoined from enforcing his decree; that an account be taken, and the assets of testator distributed according to law.
His Honor made an order for the suspension of the decree in the second cause, from which the plaintiff therein appealed.
De Saussure, for appellant.
Lesesne, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
JOHNSTON, Ch.
Upon the point argued before us, (which, indeed, is not brought before us in any ground of appeal,) we entirely agreee with tbe Chancellor. The point argued is, that, although according to the statute, and according to all the decisions upon its construction, the assets of a deceased debtor are distributable among his creditors, with reference to the rank of their demands at the time of his death; yet that this order is to be disturbed, so as to give a preference to the first creditor who obtains judgment against the executor.
Upon such a proposition the Court cannot hesitate. It is utterly untenable.
It is ordered that the order be affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
DüNKIN, Dargan and Wardlaw, CC., concurred.
Appeal dismissed.