Tbe only question presented by tbis appeal is wbetber tbe affidavit was sufficient to warrant tbe order for tbe examination of tbe judgment debtor and tbe persons alleged to be indebted to bim.
It was set forth in tbe affidavit tbat tbe plaintiff bad recovered a judgment against tbe defendant and bad same duly docketed in tbe Superior Court of Pasquotank County; tbat execution thereon bad been issued; tbat tbe judgment and execution remained unpaid and unsatisfied, and tbat there was no known property or equitable interest in real property sufficient to satisfy tbe execution; tbat tbe defendant listed for taxation notes due by certain persons and other evidences of debt, of wbicb tbe defendant was still the owner, and tbat tbe defendant bad other cboses in action and things of value, not exempt from execution, wbicb be unjustly refused to apply toward tbe satisfaction of said judgment.
Tbe affidavit was in substantial compliance with tbe provisions of sec. 712 of tbe Consolidated Statutes, and constituted sufficient basis for tbe order of examination as entered by tbe judge of tbe Superior Court. Bank v. Burns, 109 N. C., 105, 13 S. E., 871; Boseman v. McGill, 184 N. C., 215, 114 S. E., 10; McIntosh Prac. and Proc., sec. 748.
Tbe order of tbe court below is in all respects
Affirmed.