
    Stewart & Company against Childs.
    The districs sheriffs cannot serve any grocess^ reía-county courts,
    THIS was an appeal from the inferior court of Abbeville .... .... county, Ninety-six district.
    Qn tjie 5^ Df October, 1792, an attachment was granted fjy Mr. Nichols, a magistrate in Cambridge, against the effects of the defendant, Childs, for 18/. returnable into the county court of Abbeville. This attachment was handed to James Willson, a deputy-sheriff for the district of Ninety-six, who by virtue thereof, seized three negro slaves and sundry household articles, and made a return of them into the county court. A motion was afterwards made on be» half of the defendant, that the attachment and return should be dissolved, as the seizure of so much property for so small a sum, was outrageous and unreasonable in itself; and because the sheriff of the district, or his deputy, as was alleged, had no authority to serve or return any process issuing from, or returnable to, an inferior court. Upon which the county judges ordered the proceedings to be set aside ; from whose judgment this appeal was made. The only legal point, however, submitted to the court on this appeal, was, whether the district sheriff was, or was not, authorised to serve an attachment or other process return» able into the county courts ?
   Bay, J,

was of opinion, that the judgment of the judges of the county court of Abbeville, was right, and ought to be confirmed. That the fourth and fifth clauses of the county court act, respecting the service of attachments, referred to the county sheriffs, and to them only, where county courts were established 5 and not to district sheriffs, over whom the county courts had no control. That the county sheriffs were appointed by the judges of those courts, and were amenable to them for irregularity or misbehaviour s whereas the district sheriffs were appointed by the legisla» ture, for the purpose of serving the processes of the supe» rior courts, to whom only they were responsible, and who alone could call them to an account, or punish them for any acts of oppression, or omission in office. And lastly, that wherever an inferior jurisdiction was created, and in= ferior officers appointed to do the duties of such courts, no others shall in law be intended, but such as the law prescribes. 3 Burr. 1349. 2 Rep. 46.

From this decision, there was an appeal to the adjourned court at Columbia, where were present, Grimke» Waties, and Bay, Judges, who finally confirmed it.  