Case Name: Fabre against Bower
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1798
Citations: 2 Bay 124
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fabre against Bower.
Judges: Present Watif.s and Bay ; Burke and Grikke, not present at' the argument, but afterwards concurred in this decision.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 124–126

Head Matter:
Fabre against Bower.
Charleston District,
1798.
Attachments issued by magistrates under the act of 1788, are to be returned, 'into the pro-tiionotary’s office, and proceeded in agreeable to the old attachment act of 1744. The rules and practice of the county aourls are not applicable to
CASE on attachment.
The attachment in this case, had been issued by a justice of the peace, under the act of 1788, and returned into the clerk’s office of the court of common pleas, and a judgment obtained against the garnishee, for not making a due return to it, agreeably to the terms of the old attachment act.
A motion was made, by Mr. MhCall, to set aside this judgment because there had been no previous order of court made, for the garnishee to make his return, agreeably to the 4th clause of the county court act, passed in 3 785, which required such order.
; Mr. Trezevant, contra,
said there was no occasion for such order in the present case, for this attachment had been issued, under the act of 1788, which authorized justices of the peace in districts where no county courts were established, to issue attachments in certain cases, and to make' them returnable to the court of common pleas, where the proceedings' were to be agreeably to the attachment act; and this act required no such order, but made the garnishee liable on making default, in not making his return on oath, on the return of the writ.
He admitted, that the county court act required an order of court to be made on a garnishee, in cases commenced in those inferior courts, as contended for by the gentleman in favour of the motion in the present case ; but he said in cases, such as the one before the court, the county court act had no bearing upon it; it had nothing to do with it; this case depended on the act of 1788, and the attachment act of 1744, and steered entirely clear of the county court act of 1785.
The Attorney-General observed,
that the act of 1788, was intended to enlarge the old attachment act of 1744, by enabling magistrates to issue attachments, where persons were in the act of removing out of the state, and were likely to be without the jurisdiction of our courts, before a writ could be obtained from the prothonotary’s office of the court of common pleas. But when that writ was once served, it was to be returned into the prothonotary’s office, and the case proceeded in, against all persons concerned, agreeably to the attachment act of 1744.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The confusion which has so often arisen in cases of this kind, has been owing to the practitioners of the bar, blending all these acts together, and considering them as made in pari materia ; whereas, they are distinct in their nature and objects. The county court act, created new jurisdictions unknown in law before, and regulated the practice in those jurisdictions ; they are local in their nature, and circumscribed in their limits ; and the rules prescribed in the act of 1785, are peculiarly adapted to those Inferior courts, and to them only. Whereas, the act of 1788, was auxiliary to, and came in aid of the old attach ment act of 1744, by enabling magistrates to issue out writs of attachment in certain cases mentioned in the act, and to make them returnable into the court of common pleas, where they were to be proceeded in, agreeably to the terms of this last-mentioned act.
Rule to set aside the judgment discharged.
Present Watif.s and Bay ; Burke and Grikke, not present at' the argument, but afterwards concurred in this decision.