
    The State vs. James S. Guignard, Clerk of Richland Court.
    A Fi. Fa. and Ca. Sa. can both be talcen out at the same time and in the same case ; but oulj’ one can be executed.
    ThIS was a rule against the clerk to shew cause why he should not be attached, for refusing to sign and seal both a Ca. Sa. and a Fi. Fa. which h,ad been presented to him for that purpose, in the case of Haire vs. Raiford.
    
    The defendant shewed for cause, that these two executions could not legally exist at the same time, in the same-case, and that the defendant was bound to make his election.
    The case was tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Spring Term, f821, for Richland district, who directed the rule to be made absolute.
    The present was a motion to reverse that decision, upon the ground that a Fi. Fa. and Ca. Sa. cannot legally exist at the same time in the same case.
    Gregg, for the motion,
    Levy, contra.
   Mr. Justice Gantt

delivered the opinion of the court.

The law is very clear that a plaintiff may for his own security, take out two writs, but he can execute but one. It is thus settled in the case of Stamper vs. Hudson, 8 Modern, 303. The same principle is recognized in the case of Young vs. Taylor and Barron, 2 Binney, 230, where it is said, a plaintiff may take but one execution against the body of a defendant, and another against his goods, at the same time, bút both cannot be served.

The Court are of opinion that the circuit decision was éorrect, and that the motion made to reverse the same should be refused;

Justices Colcock, Notl, Johnson, Huger and Richardson, concurred.  