
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL 1806.
    Claiborne v. Frazier.
    Notice to a party requiring answers to interrogatories, or to give evidence in a cause within the summary jurisdiction of the District Courts of Common Pleas, must be served on the party himself, who is to be affected thereby, and notice on his attorney is not sufficient.
    Motion to reverse decision. On summary process, before Grimke, J., in Richland district, defendant gave notice to the plaintiff’s at- ■ tomey, (the plaintiff being beyond the limits of the State,) that he • would réquire the oath of the plaintiff to certain points particularly stated, on the defence at the trial. The plaintiff had no notice. The jucIge would not suffer the plaintiff's attorney to proceed to trial, unless the plaintiff’s oath to points required, should be produced ; and that in case the same should be produced on or before the succeeding term, that plaintiff should be nonsuited.
    Motion to reverse this decision.
   The court

granted the motion. The question arises on a rule . of court, which requires personal notice to the party, and not the attorney. Where a party is resident out of the State, notice cannot properly be served on him, and he cannot be considered within the scope of the rule ; at any rate, so far within it as to make it incumbent on him to attend personally. Whether be may not be required to answer interrogatories properly administered, under a commission, it is not now necessary to decide.

Motion granted.  