Case ID: scl_13/html/0470-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Richardson\n     \n      Gantt, Justice:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John May vs. John Walters.
    A sheriff cannot, even by his deputy, serve a writ in his own case.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Huger, Colleton district, April Term, J823.
    
    THIS case came before the court on a motion to set aside the service of die writ, because the plaintiff' being sheriff of the district, the writ ought to have been served by the coroner and not by the sheriff’s deputy. Which motion, the presiding Judge overruled : Whereupon this court was moved to reverse the decision of the Circuit Court, and to set aside the service of the writ upon the above ground.
   Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the-court:

The act of 1706, (P. L. 11, J declares, that every coroner, &c. shall be and is hereby empowered to serve and execute all writs and processes directed unto him against the marshal, &e. and also in all causes wherein the marshal is plaintiff, &c.” This act gives the power of serving writs, wherever the marshal or sheriff is concerned, to the coroner; and the only question is, whether the sheriff may not also serve such writs ? In treating of the court of the coroner, Lord Coke says, besides his judicial place, he has also authority ministerial, as a sheriff, &c. &c. viz: when there is just exception taken to the sheriff, judicial process shall be awarded to the coroner for the execution of the king’s writs, in which case- he is locum tenens vice comills; (4 Inst. 211. J Av.C in Cro. Charles. 300, it is laid down, that if the sheri*’. is either plaintiff or defendant, or one of the cogoisix-s, the writ must be directed to the coroner. (See also ¿'elk. 144; 2 Jacob's L. I). 87. 1 Plowd. 73 )

Ford <§• De Saussure, for the motion.

Hunt, contra,

By the rules of the common law then, and in my judgment, upon the sound construction of the ret. taking vio ■consideration its policy, which is to picveni. the s' cuff's acting in his own case, and regarding the remedy afforded .against his possible self-interest, it appears that the seivice ef the writ by the sheriff, in his own case, is void.

The motion is therefore granted.

Justices Johnsoii and Noit, concurred.

Gantt, Justice:

I think the sheriff in this action being .a mere nominal plaintiff, he migdit legally serve the writ.