
    Charles Jarvis vs. Lydia Giberson.
    Although by the Act of 1824, a female cannot be arrested by a ca. sa., the Court will not, for that reason, order an exoneretur to be entered ; the bail bond must still stand as the security of the defendant to answer in some shape to the judgment and execution.
    Nor will the Court for the purpose of fixing the bail of a female defendant, compel the clerk to sign a ca. sa. against her.
    BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT CHARLESTON, MAY TERM, 1837.
    In this case two motions were made : one in behalf of the plaintiff to make the rule absolute against the clerk, for refusing to sign a ca. sa. against the defendant; and the other in behalf of her bail, to enter an exoneretur on the bail piece.
    
      His Honor decided as follows :
    The Act of 1824 (see Acts of 1824, p. 26) provides, "that no female shall hereafter be liable to be arrested by any writ of capias ad satisfaciendum.”
    Although this provision does not in terms destroy the writ of 'Capias ad satisfaciendum against a female, yet it has in substance that effect. The Court will not do so idle a thing as to issue a process which cannot be enforced.
    This view is sustained by Desprang vs. Davis, 3 M’Cord, 16.
    But because no ca. sa. can be issued, it does not follow that her bail may not be made liable. The case of Desprang vs. Davis, certainly holds that a female defendant may be arrested and held to bail; and if this be true, the bail bond must stand as the security of the defendant, to answer in some shape to the judgment and execution.
    It is true that the recorder put that case upon the ground, that the defendant was arrested before the Act; and that was enough, perhaps, for it. But the Court of Appeals does not place the case upon that ground.
    Their decision I follow, and not my own judgment.
    The motions are overruled and the rule discharged.
    The plaintiff appealed, on the ground,
    That though the Act of 1824 provides that no female shall be liable to be arrested by any writ of capias ad satisfacien-dum, it does not abolish that writ as against females, but the plaintiff -is still entitled to the same for the purpose of fixing the bail, and therefore the rule against the clerk ought to have been made absolute.
    
      Yeadon and McBeth, plaintiff’s attorneys.
    The bail also appealed, on the grounds,
    1st. That the Act of 1824 does in substance and effect abolish the writ of ca. sa. as against females, and as the bail cannot be fixed but by a return of non est inventus, to a writ of ca. sa., the bail of a female defendant are in effect discharged as soon as judgment is obtained; and therefore an exoneretur ought to have been entered.
    
      2d. That after judgment, the bail bad no right to detain or surrender the defendant, and are therefore discharged.
    3d. That if the defendant were surrendered, such surrender would be entirely nugatory, inasmuch as the sheriff would have no warrant to detain her, and therefore, as the law will not require the bail to do a vain thing, they are discharged without such surrender.
    Peronneau, Mazyck and Finley, for the bail.
   Curia, per O’Neall, J.

This Court concurs in the opinion expressed by the Judge below.

The motions are dismised.  