
    Richard M. Todd vs. C. E. Williamson, and Dan'l. M‘Kie vs. Eundem.
    A party may bring an action upon a magistrate’s decree, although the ' execution had issued, and property levied on, but where the following endorsement was made by the constable upon the execution, “no further proceeding’s, the property given lip to defendant, as there were executions at the sheriff’s office binding the property, of which notice was given me.”
    m JL HIS was a case within the summary jurisdiction of the Court, founded on a magistrate’s judgment.
    Exception was taken by the counsel for the defendant, that inasmuch as it appeared in evidence, by an entry oft the execution, which had been issued on the judgment, that a levy had been made on the goods of the defendant, and that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to shew in what manner the levy had been disposed of before he could entitle himself to a decree.
    The case was tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Spring Term of 1821, for Richland district, who decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
    This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground above stated.
   Mr. Justice Gantt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

I thought on the trial of this case, and am still of the yams opinion, that the burthen of the proof lay on the defendant, to shew that the judgment had been satisfied. A levy made may raise a presumption, and only so, that the execution has been satisfied by a subsequent sale of the goods levied on; and if such was the fact, the affirmation could be easily made to appear by the adduction of the testi ■ mony in support of it by the defendant hiihself. The entry * however of the levy, on the back of the execution, was ac • companied with a statement, which shewed that no further proceedings had taken place.

Maxcy, for the motion,

ieoz/, contra.

After stating that the execution had been levied on a side-board, the constable making it, adds the following' words, a no further proceedings ; the property given up to defendant; as there were executions at the sheriff’s office binding the property, and notice of which was given me by the sheriff of Richland district.”

The motion for a new trial must fail.

Justices Colcock, Johnson and Richardson, concurred.

Mr. Justice Nott:

I concur in this opinion, because the execution shews how the property was disposed of.

Mr. Justice Huger concurred with Justice Nott.  