
    Wm. S. Miller & Co. vs. Wm. Yeadon City Sheriff.
    
    The city coroner and not the district coroner, is the proper officer to •serve a writ upon the cily sheriff óf Charleston.
    Motion to set aside a writ served upon the city,sheriff by the district coroner.
    Tried before the recorder who made the following report:
    The defendants counsel moved-to set aside the writ in this case,_ because it liad been served by the cproner of Charleston district upon the defendant, who, at the time of the service, wras the city sheriff, alleging that such service was irregular; and that it ought to have been made by the city marshal. The plaintiffs counsel ephtended that the service was regular, that not only the coroner, but any one excepting the plaintiff, might legally serve -a writ upon the sheriff or any other defendant, (2 Sellon’s Practice 89. Barnes 404.J He also relied upon the A. A. of 170fi (Py,b. Laws, 11 ) In the year 1801,. the city court was established by an ac| of die legislature. In the year 1783, the city of Charles-teta was incorporated, and under this act, the corporation were authorized to elect a recorder,, treasurer,- he. &c. and ‘‘ all such other officers as should appear to them requisite,- and necessary for carrying, into effectual execution, all the by-laws, rules and ordinances,' that they may make for the good order and government of the said.city, and the.persons residing within the same.” Under the authority of this act, the corporation in 1790, elected a city marshal. It is evident that the officers to be elected under the act of 1783,-. are exclusively such as may be necessary to carry int.a execution, the by-laws, rules and ordinances of the corporation. But the city court was not created by an ordinance of the city, hut an act of the legislature; the officers, therefore, contení-plated by the act of 1783, could not relate to the officers of a court, or in any manner relate to a court, not then in existence, and which was afterwards established, by a legislative act. And although after the existence of the city court, viz: in 1815, an ordinance was. pasted empowering the city marshal to serve writs upon the city sheriff, yet as the corporation were not authorized.by the act of 1783, or by any subsequent act to empower the. city marshal to execute any other duties than such as related to by-laws, or ordinances, it did not seem to me that they could confer a legal authority upon that officer to execute processes issuing from a court, created directly by the legislature, and limited in ite jurisdiction to matters which depended upon or grew out of the by laws or ordinances of the city. But . in 1817, the legislature enacted that the city council should be empowered annually to elect a coroner for the parishes of'St. Philip and St. Michael, “ who should exercise the same power and authority as were vested in coroners by the laws of this state.” Now the act of 1706, having authorised the coroners to execute writs and processes against the sheriff, it followed upon a fair construction of thé act of 1817, passed long after the establishment of the city court, that a similar power was given and intended to be given by that act to the city coroner, to serve processes upon the city sheriff. Although this was my impression and so declared to be, when the. rule was argued before me, I yet. expressed no opinion upon the subject, but decided, that as the service of a writ by the district Coroner, upon the city sheriff, was unauthorized by any law, it was a void service, and, therefore, that the writ must be set aside. Notice was served upon me that my decision ivould be appealed from upon the grounds taken before me.”
    
      Rice for the motion.
    
      Jtccon contra.
    
      Argued, 3d March, 1825.
   Nott, J.

The motion is refused. The court concur with the recorder, and think the process might have been Served by the city coroner.  