Skip to main content
· 3/8/1884

Rhodes v. Casey

Citations

  • 20 S.C. 491
  • 1884 S.C. LEXIS 38

Syllabus

<p>T. A judgment recovered against an administrator on final settlement of the estate of his intestate, is a judgment against him individually, and upon such judgment, supplementary proceedings may be had. t3. Where an administrator is charged, on final settlement, with a judgment recovered by him as administrator, such judgment becomes his own property, and may be reached by his creditors under supplementary proceedings.</p> <p>3. Where a judgment is rendered against an administrator, in favor of several distributees, two of whom institute supplementary proceedings against him, it would seem that the property thus reached should go to the moving creditors alone; but this is a matter of no interest to the debtor.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding defendant could not rely on his own alleged lack of legal training to excuse his failure to comply with the Rule 26(B) deadline
  • holding defendant could not rely on his own alleged lack of legal training to excuse his failure to comply with the Rule 26(B) deadline

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McGowan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.