Court Opinion

ID: 9868247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:26:59.994558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:48.809162
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Cothran:
I concur in the result, the dismissal of the appeal, but upon this ground: This was an action at law upon a promissory note. The plaintiff, upon an affidavit that the defendant had disposed of his property with intent to defraud his creditors, procured an order of arrest., The defendant, without contesting the validity of the affidavit or the legality of the order and ar*381rest, gave bond as required by the order. He did not move to vacate the arrest, nor has he appealed from the order. Upon the trial of the action upon its merits, the Circuit Judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff upon the note, and submitted to the jury the issue whether or not the defendant was guilty of th.e charge made in the affidavit. Upon this issue the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant has appealed, not from the judgment, but from the rulings and charge of the Judge in submitting .the above issue to the jury.
That issue was concluded by the failure of the defendant to move to vacate the order of arrest and his giving bond. It was not properly before the Court, and should not have been submitted. For an analogous principle see Johnstone v. Manigault, 13 S. C., 408; Reames v. Lawrence., 115 S. C., 419, 106 S. E., 31. Section 4183 of Volume 1 of the Code applies only to cases where the debt- or is under arrest.