432 DEALE v. ESTEP.—3 BLAND.

* been held to be within the power, and to be the duty of
438 the sheriff to come out of his county, tor the purpose of
bringing the party so attached, actually before the Court at the
place where it was then located by law. Cowel v. Seybry, 1 Bland,
18, note; 1785, ch. 72, s. 23 and 24.

Hence I feel satisfied, that, although subpoenas from this Court
may be served by any one, as in England, yet that such writs are
here, to be considered as, in effect, directed to the sheriff of the
county in which the party to be summoned may be found; that it
it as much the official duty of the sheriff to execute such subpoenas
as any other process emanating from this Court; and, that all the
like consequences follow, both as regards the sheriff and the parties
from the execution, or the neglect of such process, as from any
similar process specially directed to the sheriff. How, or when
this usage or principle commenced, or became established, is of
no importance; but it certainly accords entirely with that direct
energy, cheapness, and simplicity of character by which our Chan-
cery course of proceeding is so peculiarly distinguished.

In England, it would seem, that the power of sheriffs is so
strictly local, that they cannot go beyond their respective counties
even for the purpose of completing a duty begun within them; and
yet, that, within their respective bailwicks, they are considered as
the executive officers of the High Court of Chancery. Forum
Rom. 35. But in Maryland the sheriffs of the several counties are
held to be, for every purpose, the executive officers of this Court;
each ranging only within his own county for the performance of
whatever duty is to be there begun or entirely executed; and with
power to go beyond it, any where, in obedience to process, the
execution of which has been commenced there. The Legislature has
not only recognized and affirmed this to be the right and duty of
the several sheriffs of the State, as regards the Court of Chancery.
1785, ch. 72, s. 23 and 24; Molinson v. Hemsley, 1712; (a) but this
Court has been provided with additional means of enforcing the
performance of this duty as against any sheriff, coroner, or other
officer, or person to whom any process or order according to the
course of the Chancery Court may be directed or delivered; or any
sheriff, coroner, or other public officer, to whose hands any writ,
process, or order of the Chancery Court may come or be delivered;
1785, ch. 72, s. 23 and 24; 1797, ch. 43; 1818, ch. 193, s. 6; it has
been * authorized to enforce its decrees, by like process as
'***" the Courts of common law upon their judgments, by writs
which are directed to the sheriff; 1785, ch. 72, s. 5; it has been
placed upon a footing with the Courts of common law as to the

(a) An attachment of contempt ordered against the coroner for not having
the defendant's body before the Court.—Chancery Proceedings, lib. P. L.fol.
1.—Binney's Case, 2 Bland, 101.