
    Orran Byrd et ux. vs. James Hopkins.
    An attachment was issued commanding the sheriff to hold the estate attached in his hands, so that the same might be liable to farther proceedings thereupon, according to law, “at a court to be held at Mississippi city, of the county of Harrison aforesaid, upon the Monday immediately preceding the first Monday in October next: ” Held, on a motion to quash the attachment, that the omission of the word “ circuit” before the word “ court,” the attachment being in all other partiedlars regular, was immaterial; that the nature and character of the attachment, and the statement of the time and place sufficiently identified the court to which it was returnable.
    Error from the circuit court of Harrison county; Hon. Thomas A. Willis, judge.
    On the 23d day of June, 1843, Orran Byrd made oath before Larned Davis, a justice of the peace of Harrison county, that James Hopkins was indebted to Evelina Byrd, the wife of affi-ant, and to affiant in right of his wife, in the sum of $13402, together with interest at five per cent, from the 20th day of March, 1833, and that Hopkins had removed out of the state, so that the ordinary process of law could not be served upon him. He also executed bond, with security conditioned according to law, and thereupon prayed an attachment against Hopkins. On the same day the attachment was issued, which recited that the affidavit had been made, and bond and security given according to law, and then proceeded thus : “ We therefore command you that you attach the estate, real and personal, of the said James Hopkins, if to be found in your county, or so much thereof as shall be of value sufficient to satisfy the said debt and costs, according to the complaint, and such estate so attached in your hands, to secure, or so provide, that the same may be liable to further proceedings thereupon, according to law, at a court to be held at Mississippi city of the county of Harrison aforesaid, upon the Monday immediately preceding the first Monday in October next,” &c. The bond stated that the plaintiffs had prayed an attachment, &c. and proceeded thus: “ and hath obtained the same, returnable to the circuit court of Harrison county, to be held at Mississippi city, on the Monday immediately preceding the first Monday of October next, &c.”
    At the return term, the defendant moved to quash the attachment. “ First, because the attachment does not show to what court it is returnable. Second, because the said attachment is not returnable to this court.” The court sustained the motion, and ordered the attachment to be quashed. Whereupon the plaintiffs brought the case to this court by writ of error.
    
      John Henderson, for plaintiffs in error.
    The attachment in this case was quashed in the circuit court of Harrison county, for the sole reason and objection that the attachment was made returnable “ at a court to be held at Mississippi city, of the county of Harrison aforesaid, upon the Monday' immediately preceding the first Monday in October next.”
    The first objection was, that the word “ circuit ” was omitted in describing the court; the description being “at a court,” instead of “ at a circuit court.” We say the court below erred in sustaining this objection, and quashing the attachment.
    1st. Because the court described was sufficiently certain, inasmuch as the day it was to be held, and the place where, are specified ; and the law shows the court to be there held, on that day, was none other than the circuit court. See Stat. 23d, Feb. 1844, p. 245, s. 2. The law therefore renders the matter certain ; and could not justify the court in administering the law, to hold the attachment fatally uncertain, for this cause.
    But, 2d. The court recognized its own jurisdiction of the case, by entertaining a motion to quash.
    3d. The defendant cured any uncertainty for this cause, by appearing and responding in that court by attorney.
    But so far as the mistake or omjssion of the magistrate to insert the word “ circuit,” as descriptive of the court to which the writ was returnable, could raise any doubt or uncertainty as to what court was meant, such supposable uncertainty was removed by inspection of the bond, which describes the “ circuit,” &c.; and if the omission complained of was objectionable, it may be thus supplied. 6 S. & M. 412.
    The justice has also followed the literal form of attachment set forth in the statute, and though we do not contend the word “circuit” might not have been properly inserted, its omission on no rule of law or reason is material; and to quash all plaintiffs’ proceedings for such a cause, is a stringent, exorbitant, and capricious penalty, adjudged to sustain form without substance.
   Mr. Justice ThacheR

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action filed in the circuit court of Harrison county, commenced by writ of attachment.

A motion was made by the defendant to quash the attachment issued in the case. 1. Because the attachment does not show to what court it is returnable; and 2, because the attachment is not returnable to the circuit court of Harrison county. This motion having been sustained below, the plaintiff sued out this writ of error.

The writ of attachment commands the sheriff to hold the estate attached in his hands, so that the same may be liable to further proceedings thereupon, according to law, “ at a court to be held at Mississippi city, of the county of Harrison aforesaid, upon the Monday immediately preceding the first Monday in October next.” In other respects, no objection is claimed.

The objection taken is, that there is an omission of the word “circuit,” before the word “court,” in the passage above quoted. We think this objection very immaterial. The nature and character of the writ show that it could be returnable into' no other court of Harrison county but the circuit court, because it alone had jurisdiction over it; and, moreover, the statement of time and place sufficiently identify the court. Besides, the bond upon which the writ is based, describes the court with sufficient accuracy, and what was said in Lovelady el al. v. Harkins et al. 6 S. & M. 416, respecting the mere mistakes and mis-recitals of justices who issue writs of attachment, may be well applied to this case.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.  