
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, CHARLESTON,
    MAY, 1807.
    The Assignees of Muir and Boyd v. The Executors of James Muirhead.
    The Court of Appeals has no original jurisdiction. It cannot issue, or direct the issuing of writs of error. No writ of error lies in this State.
    This was an action on a bail bond. The defendant’s testator became bail for one John M’Allister, at the suit of the plaintiffs. The condition of the obligation was, that M’Allister should appear according to the exigency of the writ, and if he should be condemned in the action, that he, or the said bail, would pay the condemnation money and costs, or that M’Allister would render himself into the custody of the sheriff. The defendant pleaded the general issue. At the trial, the defendant objected that the bond was void. That according to the stat. 23 H. 6, it ought to have been taken for the appearance of the party, only ; and that this being a public act, it was not necessary to plead it. 2 D and E. 569.
    The presiding judge left it to the jury to decide, whether the defendant’s testator had made the deed, or not.
    The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered up and signed in 1803.
    On the 14th of June, 1804, the defendant obtained a rule on the plaintiff, to shew cause why the judgment should not be set aside, for error, in matter of law, apparent on the face of the record. The judge, who presided at the hearing of the cause, shewn in pursuance of the rule, dismissed the rule to shew cause, in June, 1804.
    The motion in this court was, at first, to reverse the said decision of the District Court; but afterwards, by the consent of parties, it was changed into a motion for a writ of error; and the case stated was as above, together with the following circumstances. That an action of debt on the judgment, which was obtained against Muirhead, un the bail bond, was brought against the defendants. They pleaded nul tiel record, and judgment was obtained against them on that plea ; but before the judgment was obtained, the defendants moved for a writ of error., to reverse the judgment obtained on the bail bond.; which motion for a writ of error was refused, and from this decision rejecting the motion for a writ of error, the defendant appealed, and there was an original motion in this court for a writ of error.
    The motion was argued by Bailey, and Heath, for the defendant, and was opposed by Cheves.
    It was contended, in behalf of the defendants, that, as oUr courts have supreme jurisdiction in all cases where jurisdiction may be legally exercised by the courts at Westminster, in England, and as in England, a writ of error lies for any supposed mistake in the proceedings of a court of record, in matter of law, on the face of the proceedings, that our courts ought to grant this writ. That the writ is a commission to the judges of a superior court, by which they are authorized to examine the record upon which judgment has been given in an inferior court, and to affirm, or reverse, the same. Co. Litt. 280. 2 Bac. Abr. A. A. 1736, ’37- P. L. 144.
    That the judges, at the conclusion of the circuits, being required to meet for the purpose of hearing and determining all motions as shall be made to them for new trials, &c., Const, art. 10, sec. 3. A. A. 1799, have a superintending power and control, when so met, over the District Courts, and the proceedings therein; and, therefore, have authority to issue writs of error, in order to correct the proceedings of the inferior courts, and'prevent injustice. That the several stats, of 27 Eliz. 31 ed. 3, are of force in this State, and ought to be enforced by the judges.
    
      E contra. It was argued that there was no precedent of a writ of error in this State. That the judges, when met after the conclusion of the circuits, have no original jurisdiction. They cart only decide points submitted upon eases, decided in the District Courts, by way of appeal from the determinations made in the Circuit Courts. That the Circuit Courts had no power to issue writs of error, by which one judge may reverse a judgment sanctioned by one of his brethren, which would be incongruous; and even if such a power could be exercised, the writ would not lie in such a case as this, because the bail cannot have error of a judgment against his principal. 2 Bac. Error. See Vid. Cr. Car. 481. See Co. Litt. 288.
   Bay, J.,

delivered the opinion of the whole court. That this court bad no power to grant the writ of error, nor sit as a court of errors, to rectify errors, as the courts in England, upon writs of error. That this court is not a court of record of original proceedings ; but the proceedings had in this court are to be irans-milted to, and kept in, the court where the points submitted arose ; and that the District Courts have never exercised such a juris. diction, and it would be extremely improper to exercise such a power upon the present establishment of our courts. In England, by stat. 31 Ed. 3, c. 12, in matters concerning the king, or other persons, upon complaint of error in the Exchequer Chamber, the chancellor and treasurer shall cause the record to be brought before them and the Barons. By stat. 27 Eliz. c. 3, wrjt of error lies from the judgments of King’s Bench, before the judges of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer. Before that time it lay only in Parliament. The court of K. B. superintends all other inferior courts, and corrects their proceedings by writ of error. If there Ije error in the process in the K. B., through default of the clerks, it may be reversed in the same court by writ of error. 2 Bac. Abr. “Error.” 9 Vin. 486. This system of jurisprudence, for the correction of errors', has never been adopted in this State, and it would not now be proper, or convenient, to adopt it. Every beneficial purpose which a writ of error would be calculated to attain, may be gained by way of motion in court, on a rule to shew cause; and this method of proceeding is more speedy, and less expensive. This mode of correcting erroneous proceedings has been improved of late years, and liberally extended, the judges not being so fearful to meddle with records as they were formerly in England. If this practice of correcting errors should be carried to too great an extent, or should not be exercised to that extent which it ought to be, for the safe administration of the laws, and advancement of justice, the legislature may be applied to, to furnish the proper remedy.

Nate. See 2 Saund. 100, in Williams’ note. A writ of error may be brought ■in the same court for an error in fact coram voHs, or more correctly coram no-ils. 2 Bao. Abr. A writ of error is considered as anew action. 7 T. R. 337. is a supersedeas, afier it is allowed. 2 Sir. 867,1186. 6 Johns. 337. Held to be to the Supreme Court.

Motion rejected,  