Case Name: George Parker v. Jas. L. L. Grayson, survivor of F. Grayson
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-01
Citations: 1 Nott & McC. 171
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Parker v. Jas. L. L. Grayson, survivor of F. Grayson.
Judges: Colcock and Johnson, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 102–103

Head Matter:
George Parker v. Jas. L. L. Grayson, survivor of F. Grayson.
A second writ cannot be considered as an alias, if it be issued more than a year and day after the former. The case is out of Court. And an alias ought to be tested at the return of the original capias, and made returnable at the next ensuing term.
When the time of issuing a writ is material to answer a plea, it must be replied specially. And it is not only necessary, to state the time of issuing the first writ, but the returns and continuances must be stated.
A return must purport something capable of being understood without evidence aliunde. And the letters N. E. X. have no meaning.
This was an action of assumpsit, to which the defendant had pleaded the statute of limitations. The plaintiff replied, that the defendant had assumed to to pay within four years ; on which issue was joined.
To support the replication, plaintiff s attorney produced a writ which appeared to have been entered in the Sheriff’s office, in Charleston, the 15th day of December, 1805, with the letters N. E. I. the initials of non est inveslus, marked upon it. Another writ, purporting to be an alias, was also produced, which appeared to have been entered in the Sheriff’s office in Charleston, the 6th of December, 1809, returned in the same *way. But neither of those returns, if such they can be called, were signed by the Sheriff. The present action was commenced in Beaufort district, the 20th of October, 1811. This writ purported, also, to be an alias. Several objections were made to the admission of this evidence.
1. That it did not support the issue.
2. That the second writ could not be considered as an alias; the first having been issued nearly four years before it. And
3. That neither the first nor second appears to have been returned.
The cause came on for trial at Beaufort, November Term, 1812, before Mr. Justice Nott, who sustained the objections, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.
A motion was now made to set aside that nonsuit, on the several grounds taken in the Court below.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Nott, J.
The only question tendered by the issue in this case, was, whether the defendant had promised to pay the debt within four years previous to the commencement of the action. And proof of such a promise would have supported the replication. But when the time of issuing the first writ is material, it must be replied specially. Tinje, place, and other circumstances, when material, must be set forth with the same certainty and precision as in the previous pro ceedings; 1 Chit., 624. And it is not only necessary to state the time of issuing the first writ, but the return and continuances must be stated : Smith v. Bower, 3 T. R., 662. Harris qui tam v. Woolford, 6 T. R., 617. 1 Esp. Dig., 153 Hodsden v. Harridge, 2 Saund., 63 Wm.'s Ed. Stanway qui tam v. Perry, sheriff, 2 Bos. & Pul., 157.
2. An alias ought to be tested at the return of the original capias, and made returnable to the next ensuing term. A case is out of Court when the proceedings have been suspended more than a year. And by no fiction of law could an alias, issued on the 6th of December, 1809, have a retrospect to an original, lodged *the 15th December, 1805; vide 2 Dall., 378, U. St. v. Parker, et al.
3. But lastly, there was no return to the first writ issued in this case.
A return is necessary to complete the connection between the original and the alias. And the return must purport something capable of being understood without evidence aliunde. The letters N. E. I. have no meaning; and even that return, imperfect as it is, is not signed by the sheriff. It is therefore a mere unintelligible memorandum, from which, perhaps, the sheriff might have made out a return; but it cannot be regarded by the Court as such : Impey's Sheriff, 439.
The motion must be refused.
Colcock and Johnson, JJ., concurred.
Cheves, J.,
gave no opinion, having been of counsel in the case.
3 McC. 282.
Ante, 127. 2 McC. 315.