
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    MAY, 1811.
    Sanders v. Hughes.
    A party aggrieved by the operation of an attachment, improperly sued out or conducted, is not obliged to seek redress on the bond, given by the plaintiff ír attachment, but may proceed at common law.
    The opinion of the whole court was, that although, upon an at. tachment against an absconding debtor by act of assembly, a bond is directed to be taken, with security from the plaintiff in double the sum for which the attachment issues, payable to the defendant for satisfying all costs, (if the plaintiff shall discontinue,) and damages, the defendant may recover for suing out the attachment. Yet the plaintiff is not bound to sue on such bond, for any injury he may sustain by reason of suing out any attachment, &c. But he may sue at common law. The bond was intended as an additional security.
   Smith, J.,

declared the opinion of the court.

The case was tried before Bay, J., in Orangeburgh district. Chappeii., for plaintiff. Egan, for defendant. Defendant had obtained an attachment from a justice of peace, on oath, that his debtor was about to remove, and gaye a bond for prosecuting the defendant in attachment. Plaintiff in this action replevied, and gave h bond to defend. Bail to the action. And, upon trial of the attachment, the decision was in favor of the defendant, Saunders, the present plaintiff. This action was to recover damages for the unjust vexation, and loss sustained, by the seizure of property, &c.

Bay, J., thought the action would not lie, since the act of assembly, 1799, required a bond to be taken by way of security, and the ■proper remedy was on the bond.

Grimke, J., was not present at this decision.  