
    James Wilson, Assignee, vs. Alexander Miller.
    
      .Defendant, bp his assignment of a sealed note, engaged “ifnoS good, to make it good;” after judgment against the obligor’ andfi. fa. returned nulla bona, it was .held that .other evidence than tldi return of a ca. sa. was sufficient to establish the faa ■ of the obligor's insolvency.
    
    This was a summary process, brought on -the following assignment of a single bill or sealed note, given by William Kerr ■to Alexander Miller, the defendant, ■“ May the 9th; 1822, forvaiue received.” “ i indorse the-.within note to James Wilson, which note if not good 1 promise to make good.” Signed, “A. Mill-sfSr.” The plaintiff bad .sued William Kerr, ¡the obligor of the sealed note, recovered a judgment, and had a fi. fa. issued, on which there was a return of nulla bona. No ca. sa. was issued, but the plaintiff offered other evidence to show that the defendant was insolvent. The circuit judge was of opinion that a ca. sa. was necessary, and gave a decree for the defendant. From this decree the plaintiff appealed, and moved for a new tidal, on the ground that other evidence than a ca. sa. car. support the charge of insolvency.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mr. Justice -Huger.

In the case of Eddings and Glasscock; 1 N. and M'C 295, it was only decided that a nulla bona was not sufficient to ,es4 tablish the insolvency of the defendant. It has never been; ruled that a ca. sa. with a return of non est inventus, was necessary to prove insolvency. In all cases satisfactory proof must; be adduced; but other proof than a ca. sa. may be sufficient to established the insolvency. A new trial is therefore granted.

Mott, Johnson, Colcock and Richardson, Justices, concurred.  