Faikcloth,  C,  J. :  This  action  is  against  the  defend-
ant, S.  B.  Rhea,  as  administrator  d.  b.  n.  of  R.  A.  Rhea,
for  money  loaned  and  for  other  matters  due  on  an  open
account.  At  the  trial  defendant  objected  to  the  reading
of  the  deposition  of  the  plaintiff  and  Julia  Patterson,  a
sister  of  the  plaintiff.  The  exception  was  solely  on  the
ground  that  the  commission  issued  by  the  clerk  of  Cleve-
land county  to  H.  T.  Hudson  to  take  the  deposition  hadi
no  seal  attached  and  was  void,  according  to  The  CodCj
1357.  The  defendant  failed  to  observe  other  provisions
of  the  law.  The  Act  of  1797,  Rev.  Stat.  Chapter  31,
Section  125,  provided  "that  in  all  cases  where  the  clerk
of  a  county  or  Superior  Court  issues  process,  to  the
county  of  which  he  is  clerk,  it  shaU  not  be  necessary
for  him  to  affix  the  seal  of  his  office  thereto. "  This
provision  has  been  continued,  Rev.  Code,  Chapter  31,
Section  63,  and  is  now  found  in  The  Code,  1247.  The
Legislature  thought  it  unnecessary  to  require  a  seal  in
such  case,  as  the  officers  of  the  court  would  be  known
oflBcially  to  the  citizens  of  the  county,  whereas,  when
beyond  its  limits  they  would  not  and  their  official  acts
could  be  recognized  only  when  evidenced  by  the  seal  of
the  court  whose  officers  they  were.  The  rule,  then,  is
that  when  the  process  is  to  be  executed  within  the
county  where  it  issued,  no  seal  is  required  but  if  it  goes
beyond  such  county  the  seal  is  required,  and  without  it
the  process  is  void.  This  difference  applies  to  all  pre-
cepts or  process,  such  as  summons,  execution  and  the
like.  This  distinction  has  been  sustained  by  numerous
decisions  of  this  Court.  Freeman  v.  Lewis,  27  N.  C,  91;
Taylor  v.  Tayl(yr,  83  N.  C,  116.
