
    John McMillaN, Assignee, vs. Edward L. Whitaker.
    
      Bail bond — Practice—Pleading.
    An action of debt lies in any District Court of tbe State, on a bail bond taken in the City Court of Charleston.
    BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT GREENVILLE, FALL TERM, 1858.
    Tbis was an action'of debt by tbe assignee on a bail bond taken in tbe City Court of Charleston, where tbe original action was commenced and prosecuted to judgment. Oa. so. had been issued and tbe bail fixed.
    The defendant demurred generally, and contended that tbe action was local, and confined to tbe Court and District where tbe judgment was recovered and tbe bond assigned.
    His Honor overruled the demurrer, and tbe defendant appealed. .
    
      Thomas, for appellant.
    There are two remedies on a bail bond, one by sci.fa. and tbe other by action'of deht. That tbe first is local there can be no doubt, Act 1795; 1 Brev. Dig. 53 ; and as tbis arises from the nature of tbe grievance it would seem that tbe peculiarity belongs also to tbe concurrent remedy, 1 N. & McC. 323. By tbe law as it existed before 1795, the sheriff might sue in any county, but it was not so with tbe assignee. He could sue only in tbe county where the bond was taken or assigned, 2 Tidd. Pr. 1100; 1 Tidd. Pr. 300; 1 Wheat. Sel. 53 ; 1 Esp.Dig. 26, 51; 2 Chit. PI. 471; Hob. 106; 2 Bur. 1923; 3 Wils. 348 ; 2 T. R. 569 ; t 3 Chit. Gen. Pr. 388.
    
      Elford, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, J.

In Tidd’s Practice, 1106, it is said that a scire facias on a bail piece must issue out of the Court from which the bail writ issued; and at 411, the same doctrine is stated in an action of debt. But the key to all this is, that in England there are two Courts of concurrent legal jurisdiction,'the Kings’ Bench and Common Pleas, and the remarks of the author apply to that state of things; an action on a bail piece in the King’s Bench must be in that Court, and so in the Common Pleas. In this State we have but one legal forum for the assertion of civil rights, the Court of Common Pleas. The writs of that Court run through the wrhole State, so that a recovery in Charleston, in the Common Pleas, is enforcible in every District of the State. It is true the City Court is of inferior and local jurisdiction, yet it is a Court of Common Pleas, and its process is to be enforced and protected as such.

In Legare, assignee, vs. Brown, 4 McC. 371, the action was in the City Court, on a bail bond taken in the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston District. It was objected that the bond could only be sued in the Court where it was taken, and where the original action had been brought.

But the Becorder, (that eminent jurist, Drayton,) overruled the objection, holding, that it was enough/if the suit was brought in the Court of Common Pleas; and that the City Court was a Court of Common Pleas.

That authority is enough for this case. For if the City Court could maintain the suit on the bond, in that case, much more may the larger jurisdiction of the Common Pleas maintain the action on the bond taken in the inferior jurisdiction.

The motion is dismissed.

Wardlaw, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.  