Case Name: W. B. Legare, Ass'e. vs. Charles T. Brown
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1827-11
Citations: 4 McCord 370
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. B. Legare, Ass’e. vs. Charles T. Brown,
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 370–372

Head Matter:
W. B. Legare, Ass’e. vs. Charles T. Brown,
A hail bond taken in the Circuit Court of Common Pleas for Charleston District, may be sued upon in the City Court of Charleston.
This was an action on a bail bond taken in the Common Pleas for Charleston District, and assigned to the plaintiff tried before the Recorder in the City Court of Charles ton. The defendant moved to quash the writ, on the ground that the bond could be sued upon only in the Court where it was taken and where the original action had been brought. The Recorder overruled the motion for-the following reasons.
The RECORDER. I regard the English rule as clear, that-the action on the bond should be in the same Court where the bail -was given, because the statute of Ann gives the £C same Court the power in a summary way to give such relief to the plaintiif, defendant and bail, as is agreeable to justice.” This relief can only be given by general rules of practice and these rules differ in the Common Pleas, Palatine Courts and King’s Bench. It follows that neither of these Courts could sustain jurisdiction on a bail bond taken in the other, without depriving that other of the benefit of its own rules under the Statute; but I think that where the rules of the Court taking the bond can be enforced by the Court where the suit is brought, the action must be allowed. In the present case, the City Court being a Court of Common Pleas,, to a certain extent, will be governed in a matter of bail by the rules of practice of the Common Pleas and this Court will take care that the time allowed the bail by the Common Pleas to surrender his principal shall on such a suit be neither extended nor abridged in consequence of the suit being brought here. A similar course has been pursued by the Supreme Court of New York, in the case'of Gardiner, ass’e. vs. Burham, et. alios, 12 Johnson, 459, where, on a bail bond taken in the Common Pleas, they entertained jurisdiction and awarded relief as to costs, &c. in the same manner that it would have been done in the Common Pleas.
From this decision the defendant appealed on the ground that the bail bond having been taken and the original action having been commenced in the Court of Common Pleas, that tribunal alone could take cognizance of the cause.
Egleston, for the motion.
Yeadon, contra.
.) The Court has jurisdiction only of cases involving a claim under a certain amount.

Opinion:
Curia per
Nott, J.
The Court concur with the Re-, corder in this case, and the motion, therefore, is refused.
Judgment affirmed.