SHERIFFS. 2737

Service of Process, Civil and Criminal, and Proceedings in Cases of
Failure to Make Due Return.

An. Code, sec. 5. 1904, sec. 5. 1888, sec. 5. 1785, ch. 72, sec. 23. 1794, ch. 54, sec. 1.
1798, ch. 101, sub-ch. 15, sec. 14. 1817, ch. 139, sec. 6.

5. All writs and process shall be directed to the sheriff, unless he is
disqualified, or except in cases where by law the writ or process may be
directed to another officer.

An execution should be directed to acting sheriff, although former sheriff has issued
and returned an attachment levied prior thereto on same judgment. Otherwise, the
execution will be quashed. Johnson v. Foran, 58 Md. 149.
As to process, see art. 75, sec. 153, et seq.

An. Code, sec. 6. 1904, sec. 6. 1888, sec. 6. 1817, ch. 139, sec. 6,

6. He shall serve and return all writs and process directed to him ac-
cording to the command contained therein.

The sheriff's return to a writ of attachment may be amended during the term.
Boyd v. Chesapeake, etc., Canal Co., 17 Md. 210.

When a sheriff returns a writ of attachment fully executed according to its com-
mand, he has nothing more to do so far as that writ is concerned. Johnson v. Foran,
58 Md. 150.

In all collateral inquiries the return of sheriff must be taken as correct. Admis-
sibility of evidence in a suit for false return. Keedy v. Newcomer, 1 Md. 250.

The sheriff's return is prima facie evidence of truth of what it discloses. State v.
Lawson, 2 Gill, 62. See also Hanson v. Barnes, 3 G. & J. 359; Scott v. Bruce, 2 H.
& G. 262; Hayes v. Lusby, 5 H. & J. 485.

A court of equity has no jurisdiction to decide that a return is defective; court
out of which writ issues alone has cognizance thereof. Nelson v. Turner, 2 Md. Ch. 73.

The return of a writ "cepi" when it has not been served does not necessarily
amount to fraud, and though sheriff is liable for his misconduct to the party aggrieved,
a judgment founded on such return is not to be set aside on that ground alone.
Fowler v. Lee, 10 G. & J. 358.

To enable the sheriff to sell land and vest a valid title in the purchaser, a seizure
is indispensable. Elliott v. Knott, 14 Md. 135.

If the plaintiff agrees to a return, he cannot sustain an action against the sheriff
for its being false. How a writ of replevin should be executed. Hayes v. Lusby, 5
H. & J. 485.

For a special return upheld, see Scott v. Bruce, 2 H. & G. 262.

As to the service of the writ of habeas corpus by the sheriff, see art. 42, sec. 6, et seq.

An. Code, sec. 7. 1904, sec. 7. 1888, sec. 7. 1780, ch. 10, sec. 2. 1872, ch. 433.

7. He or his deputy, when he arrests a person on a writ for any crimi-
nal offense not punishable by confinement in the penitentiary, may take a
bail-bond from the person so arrested with security to be by him approved
and in a penalty not exceeding three hundred dollars, except in those cases
where a specific fine or penalty is prescribed for the commission of the
offense, in which cases the penalty of the bond shall be the highest penalty
or fine fixed by law, with condition that the person so arrested shall appear
in court on the day the said writ is returnable and attend the court from
day to day and not depart therefrom without the leave of said court; and if
the person so arrested cannot give bail-bond, he shall be taken before a
justice of the peace to be dealt with according to law.

Bail is taken to secure attendance of accused and is not designed as a satisfaction
for the offense, when it is forfeited. Ex parte Milburn, 9 Pet. 710.