|
|
|
|
|
|
|
438 DEALE v. ESTEP.
teen held to be within the power, and to be the duty of the sheriff
to come out of his county, for the purpose of bringing the party so
attached, actually before the court at the place where it was then
located by law. (q)
Hence I feel satisfied, that, although subpaenas 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 is 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 chancery
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 bailiwicks, they are considered as the exe-
cutive officers of the High Court of Chancery, (r) But in Mary-
land 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, (s) 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 per-
son 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
0f the chancery court may come or be delivered; (t) it has been
(q) Cowel v. Seybry, 1 Bland, 18, note; 1785, ch. 72, s, 23 and 24.—(r) Forum
Rom. 35.—(s) 1785, ch. 72, s. 23 and 24—Molinson v. Hemsley, 1712.—An attack-
dent 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.—(t) 1785, ch. 72, s, 23and 24; 1797, ch. 43; 1818, ch. 193 s. 6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
