DEALE v. ESTEP.—3 BLAND. 429

BLAND, C., 5th August, 1831.—This is indeed a case of very
small amount in value; but it involves principles which are of the
greatest importance as regards the practice and course of pro-
ceeding in this Court. The right of this tribunal to resort to
some effectual means of collecting legal testimony of every de-
scription, it is manifest, must be found among the powers neces-
sarily belonging to it as a Court; for, without such a power, it
would be impossible to proceed with due effect in the administra-
tion of justice in any controverted case whatever. The only in-
quiry therefore is, as to the mode of proceeding which should be
adopted to attain that great object. Amey v. Long, 9 East, 484;
Lupton v. Hescott, 1 Cond. Cha. Rep. 138; Maccubbin v. Matthews,
2 Bland, 250.

In England, the leading process, in Courts of equity, is the
subpoena ad respondetidum, which is not, like the first process in a
suit at common law, directed to the sheriff, commanding him to
* summon, or to have the defendant before the Court to .
answer the complaint oi' the plaintiff; but it is always ad- 435
dressed, personally, to the defendant himself, commanding him to
appear and answer. It does not appear, that this first process in
equity was ever required in England to be executed by a sheriff, who
is the officer of the Court, or by the messenger, as its immediate
officer; Forum Bom. 35; but it might be executed by any one, so
that the Court was satisfied by proof of its having been duly
served. Forum Rom. 37, 41. If, after a subpoena has been served
the defendant fails to appear, then the next process is an attach-
ment; which is a writ directed to the sheriff, commanding him to
attach the defendant so as to have him before the Court. And if
the defendant still persists in his contumacy, the several subse-
quent writs, which may be issued to compel an appearance, are all,
in like manner, directed to the sheriff. 9 Harr. Pra. Chan. 221.
But as a sheriff is a mere local officer, having no authority beyond
the bounds of his county, he cannot bring a defendant, who he
has so taken into his custody, into the Court while it is sitting in
a remote or different county. And therefore upon his return of
the fact of the defendant having been attached, the Court, on ap-
plication, will order him to be brought before it by a special mes-
senger. Forum Rom. 70; 1 Harr. Pra. Chan. 234.

In England when a commission issued to rake testimony, as
the commissioners were specialty directed to call the witnesses
before them, they might and most usually did so, by & process
signed by two or more of them. But it was thought to be more
regular and effectual to issue a subpoena ad testificandum, from the
Court itself, commanding the witnesses to attend upon the com-
missioners. This subposna, as well as the subpoena duces tecum,
which seems to be now little used in England, Prac. Reg. 346, like
the leading process of the Court, was not addressed to the sheriff,