
    
      C. A. Miller vs. Thomas G. Hall. J. Hollingsworth vs. The same. M. Rowen vs. The same.
    
    1. The service of a writ is not void, because it had been signed and sealed by the clerk in blank.
    2. The writ is within die control of the clerk until delivered to the sheriff; and if at that time it has all the legal requisites, it is sufficient.
    3. The fact that a writ had not been entered in the sheriff’s office and in the sheriff’s book, is not a sufficient ground to set aside the service of it. The Act of 1839, which directs the entry and prescribes the mode, is merely directory; intended only to furnish evidence of the fact, that the writ was delivered to the sheriff; in case such proof should be required either against the sheriff, or in controversies between other parties. Such entry, with the endorsement of it, cannot be held essential to the validity of the writ, or the legality of the service.
    
      Before Earle, J. at Edgefield, Fall Term, 1842.
    This was a motion made on the part of the defendants, to set aside the service, and to quash the writs in the above stated cases. The ground of the motion was, that the clerk had signed some blank forms of writs, and delivered them to the plaintiff’s attorney residing in Hamburg, who issued them as occasion required, and delivered them to a known deputy of the sheriff, residing in that neighborhood, who served or executed them, without their being first delivered to the high sheriff,-or formally entered in his books.
    His Honor did not consider the irregularity fatal, and overruled the motion.
    The defendant appealed from the decision of the presiding Judge, and now renewed his motion in the Court of Appeals, on the following grounds:
    1. Because the writs'were signed and sealed in blank by the clerk of the court, and at the time of such signing and sealing, no notice or intimation was given to the said clerk of the forms of the said writs, or the parties thereto, or the sums thereby demanded, or the dates of the said writs, or the term to which they are made returnable.
    2. Because the said writs were served, and the defendant by virtue of them arrested, previously to their being delivered to the sheriff, or entered in his office, or endorsed with the date of such entry.
    Carroll, for the motion,
    argued that, in the absence of any rule of court here, the rule at Westminster Hall must' prevail, which foreids the signing of writs in blank ; and cited 1 Tidd’s Prac. 33, R. 1747, 2 edition; 3 Chitty’s General Practice, 224. On the second ground, he cited Act of 1839, p. 26, chap. 6; 3 Stat. at Large, 118.
    Yancy, contra.
    The signature of the clerk will presume that the seal has been properly affixed. He cited 1 C. R. (by Mills) 104. There is a great difference as to the practice in England and this country — cited 2 Hill, 586; 1 M'Cord, 212. Here we have no original writ; and amendments may be made while the proceedings are in paper. He insisted that the Sheriff’s neglect could not vitiate the writ. Would the court look beyond the record'?
   Curia, per

Earle, J.

The motion to quash the writ, because it was signed by the clerk in blank, cannot be allowed to prevail. There is no rule of court here, as in the court at Westminster, which forbids such a practice; nor have we had occasion to observe any particular mischief which results from it. It would seem to be quite irregular to allow the clerk to disavow and invalidate his ■own act. The writ is within the control of the clerk until delivered to the sheriff; and if at that time it had all the legal requisites, it is sufficient. The practice of signing writs in blank, has been common ever since district courts were established; and has been too long sanctioned to be disturbed.

Nor can we agree to set aside the service on the ground that it was not entered in the sheriff’s office, and in the sheriff’s book. The Act of 1839, which directs the entry and prescribes the mode, is merely directory; intended only to furnish evidence of the fact, that the writ was de^ livered to the sheriff; in case such proof should be required either against the sheriff, or in controversies between othel parties; and the entry, with the endorsement of it, cannot be held essential to the validity of the writ, or the legality of the service. The sheriff is equally required to enter the service and return; and it would be quite as reasonable to hold the service void, because the sheriff fails to enter it in his book. Motion refused.

Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, Butler and Wardlaw, JJ. concurred.  