
    Wilson Nesbit v. James M’Daniel, (late Sheriff of Greenville District).
    A writ in trover cannot be served under tbe provisions of tbe Act of 1827, in any other districfthan that to which it is returnable.
    It is the intention of that Act, that the taking of the bond, &c., therein prescribed^ shall be after action brought by service in the usual way.
    Before Richardson, J., at Greenville, Rail Term, 1839.
    This was a special action on the case against the late sheriff of Greenville district, for failing to arrest Russel Price, and to take bond, under the act of 1827, upon a writ in trover for a negro, at the suit of the plaintiff.
    The writ was returnable to Spartanburg Court House, and had, besides the usual order for bail, the following indorsement : “ Spartanburg district,” &c.. “ To all and singular the sheriffs,” &c. “ You and each of you are hereby required, without delay, to cause the defendant to enter into bond with sufficient security to the sheriff of said district, for the production of a negro boy, Job, in his possession, to satisfy the plaintiff’s judgment in case he should recover against the defendant. Oct. 6, 1836. — T. Tapp, Clerk.” This writ was lodged-with the sheriff of Greenville district, and, upon his-failure, as above stated, 'to make the arrest, this action was brought.
    
      The Court charged that this process was a good and sufficient authority for the sheriff of Greenville to arrest Price in his district, and the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff of four hundred and ten dollars.
    Defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground of error in the judge’s charge.
   Curia, per Richardson, J.

It was contended in argument on the circuit that, in virtue of our act of 1827, under which the indorsement was made upon the writ before us, the sheriff of any district might arrest a defendant in. trover, notwithstanding he had not been served with the writ in the district to which it was returnable; and I so charged the jury, rather than keep them from the consideration of the merits of such a case, upon a question of construction yet new and undecided. But I am satisfied, on more mature deliberation, that the act will not admit of this interpretation.

The Act of 1827 (p. 81) provides, upon a proper affidavit made by the plaintiff in trover, that an order shall issue “ to all the sheriffs of the state, requiring them,” &c., “ to cause the defendant to enter into bond with sufficient security to the sheriff of the district in which such action shall be brought, for the production of the chattel sued for, to satisfy the plaintiff’s judgment,” &c. This is a remedial statute, and is to be liberally construed for its obvious purpose of securing the plaintiff in his chattel. But though, for this end, it may be proper that after action brought, the sheriff of any district where the defendant happens to be shall take a bond payable to the sheriff of the district in which the action shall have been brought; certainly it is not requisite that the action of trover shall have the peculiar privilege of being commenced in one. district, by service of a writ in any distant part of the state. This would be an anomaly in our juridical system, not to be introduced upon mere construction, or anything short of the imperative letter of the act. To use a language somewhat technical, each judicial district would then, as to' the action of trover, he a Westminster Hall, and all the rest be as nisi prius districts. A citizen of Pickens Court House might be arrested and carried to make his defence in Charleston. Thus, while the first principle of our circuit system, (the original and exclusive authority of each court within its limits,) was violated, its wholesome policy also would be utterly frustrated, which intends that the tribunal of justice shall be as convenient as possible, alike to plaintiff and defendant.

See 3 Rich. 178 ; 2 Hill, 520. An.

Perry, for the motion.

Prom- this position, it follows that the service in Greenville, of the writ returnable to Spartanburg, would have been void, and of course no action will lie against the sheriff for having failed to make it. A nonsuit is therefore ordered.

The whole Court concurred. 
      
       6 Stat. So. Ca. 337.
     