
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1805.
    Smith v. Goudalock.
    Though a domestic attachment should be levied on land only, yet if the defendant should appear in consequence of such levy, and should give bail to the action, without excepting to the illegal service of the attachment, and judgment should afterwards be obtained against him, he shall not be permitted (or any other person on his part or behalf) to question the propriety of the judgment, on the ground of such illegal or defective service of the leading process.
    Motion to set aside a nonsuit, &c. Trespass to try titles, before Bay, J. in Union district. Plaintiff claimed under a conveyance from the sheriff, who had sold the land in dispute under an execution issued pursuant to a judgment obtained in the county court of Union. It appeared that the judgment had been obtained upon a process of attachment, issued under the act of 1785, which had 
      Tifien levied upon land. But it also appeared, that the defendant in attachment had dissolved the attachment, by giving bail to answer the action, and had appeared and pleaded to the said action by attorney. At the trial, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which Bay, J. ordered, on the ground, that the judgment had been erro, neously obtained, inasmuch as the attachment had not been legally levied; and that the consent of the defendant in the attachment afterwards by giving bail, and pleading to issue, ought not to prejudice him, seeing that he had been led to that step by his misconception of the law, and of his right: and that his consent could not give the county court a jurisdiction, which they had not wit ¡out it.
    The motion was argued on the 25th April, 1805, by Nott, for the plaintiff, and Smith, for the defendant. Nott cited the case of Stogdon v. Martin, decided in this court in 1802. (Ante, p. 71.)
   By the pouET.

(Ctkimkb, VVatjes, Brevard, and Wilds, Justices.)

The appearance of the defendant, in the proceedings on attach, ment, and putting in bail, dissolved the attachment, and the subsequent proceedings to judgment were the same, as in cases where the process has been served in the usual manner upon a capias ad respondendum, of course the illegal service of the attachment must be considered as waived, and the defect cured. The subject matter in dispute between the parties in the suit by attachment, was within the jurisdiction of the county court, and the defendant might dispense with the illegal service of the writ, and consent to try the matter the subject of the suit; and this it appears he has done: therefore, the judgment should have been considered as valid, and, .sufficient to support the execution.

Nonsuit set aside.  