Johnson v. Foran

Btoxe, delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant caused to be issued from the Baltimore ■City Court on the 20th day of April, 1869, an attachment •on warrant against the goods and chattels, lands, &c., of rlames Eoran and others, the appellees, as non-resident debtors. This attachment was duly laid upon certain real estate in the City of Baltimore, and the writ with a schedule of the property attached was returned to the Court from whence the attachment issued and a judgment of condemnation entered. John W. Davis was then sheriff of Baltimore City, and laid the attachment and made the return.

The judgment appears to have slept •until April 9th, 1881, when a fieri facían was issued thereon, directed to John W. Davis, the former sheriff, who had laid the attachment, but who was no longer in office. A motion was made in the Court below by the appellee, Eoran, to quash this execution upon the ground that the writ of fi.fa. should have been issued to the acting sheriff of Baltimore City, and not to the former sheriff. The Court belo-w granted this motion and quashed the execution, and the correctness of this riding is the question presented for decision on this appeal. The Code, Article 88, sec. 8, provides that “all writs and process shall be directed to the sheriff, unless he is disqualified, or unless where by law the writ or process may be directed to another officer.” Buch being the provisions of the Code, the writ of fi. fa. in this case must go to the acting sheriff unless he is dis ¹⁵⁰ qualified, or unless by law the writ may be directed'to-another officer.

There is no evidence that the acting sheriff was in any manner disqualified to execute this writ, and there is no statute or common law in force in this State, by virtue of which such an execution may be directed to another officer. By sec. 9, Article 88 of the Code, it is provided that the sheriff “shall serve and return all writs and process