National Exchange Bank v. Stelling

Citations

• 31 S.C. 360
• 9 S.E. 1028
• 1889 S.C. LEXIS 42

Syllabus

<p>1. Where the defendant is a non-resident of the State, and cannot, after due diligence, be found therein, and a cause of action exists against him, and he is a proper party to the action, which relates to real pi-operty in this State — the court has jurisdiction of the action, and, the master being satisfied of these facts by the affidavits submitted to him, his order for the service of the summons by publication is proper.</p> <p>2. The courts of this State have jurisdiction to set aside, as to real property in this State, a fraudulent assignment made in another State, even where all the parties in interest are non-residents.</p> <p>3. After order for publication of summons, personal service was made in another State, proved by admissions of defendant on the record and by affidavit of the person who served it, before a notary public, who attested the same by his signature and official seal. More than a year afterwards, a clerk of a court of record certified, under his hand and official seal, to the official character of such notary. Held, that the defendants were properly served, and that the service was legally proved.</p> <p>4. While attachments may be issued in some actions other than one for the recovery of money, an action by creditors of A against A and B, to set aside-a fraudulent conveyance by A to B, and for the payment of the debt, is. as to A (the only appellant in this court), an action for the recovery of money.</p> <p>5. It the facts stated in the affidavit, upon which an attachment issued, were not sufficient to set aside as fraudulent a deed from A, the defendant debtor, to B, but did show an indebtedness by A to the plaintiffs, they would be sufficient to show that a cause of action existed.</p> <p>6. In the face of the clerk of court’s certificate, that the undertakings in the attachment proceedings were filed and approved, it cannot be urged that they were not filed or approved.</p> <p>7. An undertaking in attachment is not sufficient to justi