
    William Sloan vs. Anson Bangs & Co.
    Domestic attachment against four partners issued on plaintiff’s oath, that he had just grounds to ‘ suppose and does very believe that defendants intend to remove their effects.’ Three of the defendants, it clearly appeared, were out of the State. J. M., another defendant, left the State and went to Georgia, a few days before the attachment issued, declaring- his intention to return, and leaving his baggage at the hotel where he boarded. On the day the attachment issued, he was in Georgia, and the defendants were then in the act of removing their goods. Motion to set aside the attachment, because the defendants were out of the State, refused.
    BEFORE WHITNER J., AT ANDERSON, FALL TERM, 1856.
    Tbis was a domestic attachment against Anson Bangs, Eli Bangs, John 0. Matber, Butler H. Bixby and Ausburn Bird-sail, co-partners under tbe name and firm of Anson Bangs & Company. Tbe recital in tbe writ was, tbat plaintiff “bas just grounds to suppose and does verily believe, tbat defendants intend to remove tbeir effects.” A motion was made to set aside tbe attachment, on tbe ground tbat all tbe defendants were absent from and without tbe limits of tbis State on 23d April, 1856, when tbe attachment was issued. Tbe facts, upon which tbe motion was based, were contained in several affidavits, and sufficiently appear in tbe opinion delivered in tbe Court of Appeals. His Honor, tbe presiding Judge, refused tbe motion. Defendants appealed, and now-renewed tbeir motion in tbis Court.
    
      Heed, for appellant.
    Mc&owan, contra.
   Cueia pee 0‘Neall, J.

It appears very clearly, that Anson Bangs, Eli Bangs, Butler H. Bixby, and Ausburn Birdsall, in tbe months of April and May, were not in the State of South Carolina. John C. Mather, was in Anderson, South Carolina, until a few days before the issuing of the attachment; he left, professing an intention to return in a few days, leaving his baggage in the room of the hotel where he boarded. On the day of the date of the attachment, it also appears, that he was in Athens, Georgia: but at the time of the issuing of the attachment, the goods of the defendants were in the act of removal.

The attachment was issued under the fourth head of the powers of a magistrate, under the Act of 1839, to issue an attachment. Lindau vs. Arnold, 4 Strob. 492.

The information on oath to the magistrate, is in the precise words of the Act, and is sustained by the facts above alluded to in reference to John C. Mather, one of the firm of Bangs & Co.' It may be, that such a levy is only good as to him, and may not affect the other partners. But, as at present advised, we must sustain the attachment, and leave the parties to pursue such course as they may think proper as to other matters.

The motion is dismissed.

Waedlaw, Withees, WhitNee, Glovee and Muheo, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.  