
    Norwood vs. Martin.
    E mí ó n to Baltimore County Court, issued on the SOth May 1810, for the removal of a judgment rendered in that court at March term 1810, for ^834 debt, §500 dainages, and S7 93| costs. The damages by (agreement,) to be released oil payment of interest on the debt from the 1st of January 1809. A record of the proceedings was transmitted to this court to June term last, with the writ of error, endorsed, “Bond filed, and securities approved. ” ^ t : ! '
    The plaintiff in error entered into bond tyitJi ties, to the defendant in error, (wlndft was a|i* proved by the chancellor)'for fhe removal of a judgiiK-nt from' the é.mnly court to the court of appeals; but as the bond was not in double the amount of the (debt, &c, recovered, the defendant in error sued out a ca. sa. on the judgment, under which the plaintiff in error was taken in execution, who positioned to, and moved the court of nppe'il, for a •writ of habeas cor* pus to di-charge him fi ora the execution— Held* that the writ of habeas corpus could not
    
      T. Buchanan, for the Plaintiff in error,
    at this term, exhibited a petition on the part of the plaintiff in error, stating that he had on the 30th of May 1810, entered into bond with sureties, approved by the chancellor, for prosecuting a writ of error on the judgment rendered against him in Baltimore county court, at the suit of the defendant in error, a copy of which bond he exhibited, being in the penal sum of §800, and in the usual form. That a transcript of the record of said judgment had been transmitted to, and was now depending in this court. That on the 29th of November 1810, the defendant in error sued out a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum on the judgment from Baltimore county court, under which the plaintiff in error had been arrested, and was in custody of the sheriff of that county under the said pretended execution, from which he prayed to be discharged, &c. i . - 1
    And on the motion of the counsel of the plaintiff in error, it was ruled by' the court, that the defendant in error show cause, by Friday the 4th of December instant, why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue to the sheriff of Baltimore county, to produce the body of the plaintiff in error before this court, &c.
    
      Martin, in person,
    now showed cause. He contended, that as the penally in the writ of error bond was not in double the amount of the debt, damages and costs, the writ of error did not operate as a supersedeas. lie referred to the act of 1713, ch. 4, The approval by the chancellor was only as to the security, and has nothing to do with the form of the bond. He also contended, that as the petitioner, (as was the case,) was then present in court, and not'in Use actual custody of the sheriff of Bal
      
      timare county, he was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. He referred to 3 Bac. Ab. tit Habeas Corpus, (B 3) 427. Rex vs. Kessel, 1 Burr. 637. He further insisted that this court, as a court of appeals, had no authority to issue the writ. It can only be issued, if at al!, by the court out of which the ta. sa. issued, or by a member of this court out of court. *
   RULE DISCHARGED,  