
    10965
    
      EX PARTE DRUMMOND PRIESTER v. DRUMMOND
    (112 S. E. 824)
    Arreal and Error—Order Refusing to Vacate Warrant for Seizure of Tenant's Crops on Conflicting Affidavits Affirmed —Where an application by a landlord for a warrant directing the Sheriff to seize the crops of the tenant was supported by the landlord’s affidavit, the facts of which were controverted by the tenant’s affidavit, and the landlord introduced an affidavit in reply, so that the question whether the landlord was entitled to the warrant of seizure depended upon the facts, an appeal from an order refusing to vacate the warrant will be dismissed, where the tenant has failed to satisfy the Supreme Court that there was error in the ruling as to the facts.
    Before Rice, J., Allendale, July, 1921.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Application by W. E. Drummond to- vacate a warrant directing the Sheriff to seize the crops of the applicant as tenant, in proceedings by I. S. Priester as landlord against the applicant. From an order refusing to vacate the order, the applicant appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    
      
      Mr. James B. Davis, for appellant,
    cites: Requisites of attachment: 46 S. C, 517; 75 S. C„ 181; 24 S. C., 119.
    
      Mr. James M. Patterson, for respondent,
    cites: Tenant has two courses open: 24 S. C., 119; 19 S. C., 515. Appellant must show preponderance of evidence was against finding: 19 S. C., 515; 25 S. C., 467; 43 S. C., 347.
    July 25, 1922.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Rice, at chambers, refusing to vacate a warrant issued by the Clerk of the Court of Allendale County, directing the Sheriff to seize-the crops of the appellant on the 12th day of July, 1921.

The application for the warrant was supported by affidavit on the part of 'the respondent. The facts alleged in the said affidavit were controverted by the appellant’s affidavit, and the respondent introduced an affidavit in reply.

The question whether the respondent was entitled to the warrant of seizure depended upon the facts. It was incumbent on the appellant to satisfy this Court that there was error in that respect, which he has failed to do.

Appeal dismissed.

Mr. Justices Fraser, Cothran and Marion concur.  