Courts.- Property seized by court officer by virtue of its process is temporarily in court's custody and control, and not recoverable by resort to another jurisdiction, p. 341.

Cited and principle applied in Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 180, 181, 28 L. 392, 4 S. Ct. 357, 358, reviewing cases, holding court's possession complete defense in action of replevin; Rio Grande Rd. ▼. Gomila, 132 U. S. 481, 482, 33 L. 401, 10 S. Ct. 156, holding Circuit Court's right to apply attached property to judgment, not impaired by debtor's death; Domestic, etc., Society v. Hinman, 2 McCrary, 545, 13 Fed. 163, Wilmer v. Atlanta, etc., Ry., 2 Woods, 428, F. C. 17,775, Blake v. Alabama etc., Rd., 3 Fed. Cas. 588, Daly v. Sheriff, 1 Woods, 179, F. C. 3,553, and Townsend v. Leonard, 3 Dill. 871, F. C. 14,117, refusing to interfere with possession by State court which first seized property; Ex parte Turner, 3 Woods, 608, 609, F. C. 14,246, where Federal court by its officer seized and retained documents for evidence; Ruggles v. Simonton, 3 Biss. 329, F. C. 12,120, refusing to enjoin sale of property in possession of sheriff; In Matter of Clark, 4 Ben. 98, F. C. 2,798, sustaining State court's jurisdiction and possession; Bradley v. Frost, 3 Dill. 459, F. C. 1,780, holding sheriff turning over attached property without notice of suit in bankruptcy, not liable; In re Vogel, 7 Blatchf. 20, 22, F. C. 16,982, S. C., 28 Fed. Cas. 1243, In re Askew, 2 Fed. Cas. 31, Byrd v. Harrold, 4 Fed. Cas. 950, Phelps v. Sellick, 19 Fed. Cas. 465, and In re Litchfield, 13 Fed. 866, holding bankrupt's property passes into assignee's hands, i. e., into court's control, instantly upon assignee's appointment; Johnson v. Bishop, Woolw. 328, F. C. 7,373, holding assignee in bankruptcy could not maintain action for property previously attached in State court; Bruce v. Manchester, etc., Rd., 19 Fed. 345, holding Federal court would not interfere with State court receiver's possession of railroad; In re Steadman, 22 Fed. Cas. 1159, holding bankrupt's possession is possession of Bankrupt Court; Senior v. Pierce, 31 Fed. 627, and Melvin v. Robinson, 31 Fed. 635, holding State court officer's possession of property seized under process, could not be disturbed by Federal court; Tefft v. Sternberg, 40 Fed. 7, 6 L. R. A. 225, and n., where court respected possession and jurisdiction of State court; The E. L. Cain, 45 Fed. 369, Porter ▼. Davidson, 62 Fed. 627, and Southern Bank v. Folsom, 75 Fed. 932, 43 U. S. App. 713, holding Federal court could not get possession of property first seized under State court process; Gates v. Bucki, 53 Fed. 966, 12 U. S. App. 69, reversing order enjoining State court; Reinach v. Atlantic, etc., Rd., 58 Fed. 44, refusing to enjoin State court; American Assn. v. Hurst, 59 Fed. 4, 5, 16 U. S. App. 325, holding Federal court could not enjoin sale of land in State court; St. Paul, etc., Ry. v. Drake, 72 Fed. 947, 948, 44 U. S. App. 271. holding Federal court's possession could not be interfered with in suit for wrongful levy; Kelly, etc., Co. v. Sioux N. Bk., 81 Fed. 4, maintaining State court's exclusive jurisdiction to pass on liens on

property in its custody; Hale v. Bugg, 82 Fed. 36, refusing to enjoin attaching creditors in State court; Opelika v. Daniel, 59 Ala. 215, holding State court could not interfere with Federal court's process; Ford v. Judsonia Mercantile Co., 52 Ark. 429, 20 Am. St. Rep. 193, 12 S. W. 877, 6 L. R. A. 715, holding Chancery Court could not order delivery, by sheriff, of attached property to its receiver; Keegan v. King, 96 Fed. 759, 760, holding stranger could not sue trustee of Bankruptcy Court; Walker v. Taylor Commission Co., 56 Ark. 2, 18 S. W. 1056, directing discharge of attachment on property in court receiver's possession; Parks v. Wilcox, 6 Colo. 491, holding assignee under State law could not replevin goods attached by United States marshal; Mollison v. Eaton, 16 Minn. 430, 10 Am. Rep. 151, affirming recovery of damages from United States marshal for taking property from sheriff's possession; Metzner v. Graham, 57 Mo. 410, holding property held by sheriff, under attachment, could not be reseized and sold by him on special execution from another court; Fisher v. Lewis, 69 Mo. 630, collecting cases, sustaining sale, under execution, on judgment rendered and levy made prior to debtor's bankruptcy; State v. Taylor, 3 Mo. App. 357, holding sheriff could not turn over to assignee in bankruptcy proceeds of execution sale; Prugh v. Portsmouth Savings Bank, 48 Neb. 417, 67 N. W. 310, refusing to interfere with Federal court's process; Feusier v. Lammon, 6 Nev. 213, holding question of title to property in United States marshal's custody cannot be tried in replevin suit in State court; Chapin v. James, 11 R. I. 89, 90, 91, 92, 23 Am. Rep. 414, 416, 417, 418, refusing to interfere by injunction with sale of property levied on under Federal court's judgment; James v. Kennedy, 10 Heisk. 611, holding marshal having seized property, attempted levy by sheriff ineffectual. Cited, without particular application, in Rodgers v. Pitt, 96 Fed. 674.

Cited also in Tua v. Carriere, 117 U. S. 208, 29 L. 858, 6 S. Ct. 569, holding surrender of firm's property under Louisiana insolvent law could not be disregarded in collateral proceeding; Denny v. Bennett, 128 U. S. 502, 32 L. 496, 9 S. Ct. 139, dissenting opinion, majority affirming State court judgment in action of trover against marshal; referred to, without deciding question, in Burnham v. First, etc.. Bank, 53 Fed. 165, 10 U. S. App. 485, and Heyman v. Covell, 44 Mich. 336, 6 N. W. 848 (reversed in Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 180, 28 L. 392, 4 S. Ct. 357), dissenting opinion, majority holding replevin lies to recover seized property from marshal. Affirmed, arguendo, in Ahlhauser v. Butler, 50 Fed. 708, Wadley v. Blount, 65 Fed. 674, Malcomson v. Wappoo Mills, 85 Fed. 910, Powers v. Blue, etc., Loan Assn., 86 Fed. 707, Gay v. Brierfield, etc., Iron Co., 94 Ala. 311, 33 Am. St. Rep. 129, 11 So. 356, 16 L. R. A. 567, and Seaton v. Higgins, 50 Iowa, 306.

Distinguished in Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 491, 26 L. 356. holding, where prerequisites for removal performed, case and res

both go to Federal court; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 280, 281, 38 L. 989, 14 S. Ct. 1026, 1027, The Sailor Prince, 1 Ben. 237, F. C. 12,218, and The Caroline, 1 Low. 173, F. C. 2,419, all holding prior jurisdiction of State court cannot prevent seizure of vessels by Admiralty Court; Walker v. Flint, 2 McCrary, 343, 7 Fed. 436, where attempt made by attornment to trespassing officer to oust Federal court's jurisdiction; The Jas. W. French, 5 Hughes, 434, 13 Fed. 920, where officer's possession was unlawful. Denied in Heyman v. Covell, 44 Mich. 334, 38 Am. Rep. 274, 6 N. W. 847 (reversed in Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 180, 28 L. 392, 4 S. Ct. 357), where wrongfully seized goods held repleviable from marshal.

Courts. Upon conclusion of litigation in which seizure was made, on discharge of officer's or court's possession, other courts having Jurisdiction are at liberty to deal with property according to rights of parties before them, p. 342.

Cited and principle applied in Andrews v. Smith, 19 Blatchf. 103, 5 Fed. 836, reviewing cases, sustaining Federal court's jurisdiction after State court receivership ended; Liggett v. Glenn, 51 Fed. 391, 4 U. S. App. 438, where property had passed from State court's possession; In re Hall, 73 Fed. 529, 530, holding attached real estate neither in actual nor constructive custody of State court, and subject to seizure by Federal court; Hill v. Corcoran, 15 Colo. 274, 277, 25 Pac. 172, 173, holding goods under attachment in Federal court may be replevied with such court's consent, by suit in State court; McPike v. Wells, 54 Miss. 147, 156, where non-resident lienor s administrator enforced lien in State court after sale of property by order of Federal court. Affirmed, arguendo, in Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 275, 279, 38 L. 987, 989, 14 S. Ct. 1025, 1026.

Courts.- Pending litigation in Federal court in which goods attached, and sale and delivery of attached goods and satisfaction of execution were involved, State court could simultaneously determine suit against marshal for wrongful levy, but without interfering with Federal court's possession, p. 342.

Cited and principle applied in McKee v. Rains, 10 Wall. 25, 19 L. 861, holding marshal not entitled to remove such suit into Federal court; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 719, 20 L. 672, maintaining attaching court's right to control property in its custody; Sharpe v. Doyle, 102 U. S. 689, 26 L. 278, holding title to attached property open to inquiry in such suit; Rumsey v. Town, 20 Fed. 563, holding court, other than that wherein insolvency proceedings had, could settle rights of parties interested in estate; Powers v. Blue, etc., Loan Assn., 86 Fed. 708, holding State court suit by assignee to construe assignment no obstacle to Federal court suit to set it aside; Hubinger v. Central Trust Co., 94 Fed. 791, sustaining jurisdiction of suit for damages for waste, notwithstanding pendency of foreclosure sult in State court Cited also in Watson v. Jones,

13 Wall. 737, 20 L. 679, dissenting opinion, majority holding orders of State court respecting property in its custody entitled to immunity from interference by Circuit Court; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 618, 37 L. 872, 13 S. Ct. 910, holding suit maintainable in Federal court by foreign debtor against administrator, but without interfering with Probate Court's possession of property. Affirmed, arguendo, in Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 196, 18 L. 776, and The Normandie, 40 Fed. 591. Cited, arguendo, in Kellogg v. Russell, 11 Blatchf. 523, F. C. 7,666.

Denied in Heyman v. Covell, 44 Mich. 334, 38 Am. Rep. 274, 6 N. W. 847 (reversed in Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 180, 28 L. 392, 4 S. Ct. 357), as to want of power to interfere with marshal's pos session.

Attachment Execution.- Process of court having jurisdiction commanding seizure of specifically designated property is complete protection to seizing officer who keeps strictly within mandatory clause thereof, p. 343.

Cited and principle applied in Conner v. Long, 104 U. S. 234, 235, 26 L. 726, reviewing cases, holding sheriff not liable for wrongful conversion of attached property, where debtor shortly afterwards adjudicated bankrupt; Stutsman County v. Wallace, 142 U. S. 311, 35 L. 1025, 12 S. Ct. 232, holding warrant protected county officer selling property for taxes designated by warrant; United States v. Dantzler, 3 Woods, 721, F. C. 14,917, where seizure made under writ of replevin out of State court; Hayden v. Johnson, 59 Ga. 108, holding officer protected by execution on special judgment against particular lot for purchase money; Chipstead v. Porter, 63 Ga. 222, holding constable not liable for execution of possessory warrant against specific property; Jefferson v. Hartley, 81 Ga. 718, 9 S. E. 175, holding writ of possession complete protection to officer for removing person mentioned therein, but no others; Thompson v. State, 3 Ind. App. 377, 28 N. E. 998, where sheriff sold specific property described in order of sale; Philips v. Spotts, 14 Neb. 142, 15 N. W. 334, where writ describing and directing seizure of designated goods constituted good defense for officer. Affirmed, arguendo, in Harris v. Glenn, 56 Ga. 97. See also copious note to 75 Am. Dec. 177.

United States marshal.- Process directing seizure of sufficient property of a party to satisfy demand against him, requires exercise of officer's judgment and discretion, for erroneous exercise of which he is legally responsible to any person prejudiced thereby. and court is in no manner responsible therefor, p. 344.

Cited and principle applied in Leroux v. Hudson, 109 U. S. 476, 477, 27 L. 1003, 3 S. Ct. 313, 314, directing dismissal of bill to enjoin suit for wrongful levy; Lammon v. Feusier, 111 U. S. 19, 20, 28 L. 337, 4 S. Ct. 286, 287, sustaining right to sue marshal's sureties for wrongful levy; North v. Peters. 138 U. S. 284, 34 L. 940, 11 S. Ct.

3 Wall. 327-332, 18 L. 177, THOMSON v. LEE COUNTY.

Municipal corporations have no inherent right of legislation, and cannot subscribe for stock in public improvement unless authorized by legislature, p. 330.

Cited and principle applied in Ottawa v. Carey, 108 U. 8. 123, 27 L. 675, 2 S. Ct. 365, collecting cases, holding bonds issued in aid of water company, without authority, void; Smith v. Tallapoosa County, 2 Woods, 577, F. C. 13,113, holding legislative authority necessary; Lewis v. Shreveport, 3 Woods, 212, F. C. 8,331, holding bonds vold where no authority for their issue conferred by legislature; Newport v. Railway, 58 Ark. 275, 24 S. W. 428, holding town could not contract for nor bind itself to pay for, construction of levee; Wiegel v. Pulaski County, 61 Ark. 79, 32 S. W. 117, holding County Court could not bind county by contract for building turnpike; Lafayette, etc., R. R. v. Geiger, 34 Ind. 219, holding county could not borrow money to pay subscription for railroad stock; Sioux, etc., R. R. v. Washington County, 3 Neb. 42, holding board of equalization could meet and reassess taxes only in the manner and times provided by law; State v. Eason, 114 N. C. 792, 41 Am. St. Rep. 813, 19 S. E. 89, 23 L. R. A. 524, and n., construing strictly provisions of municipality's charter, defining limits of jurisdiction; Logan City v. Buck, 3 Utah, 305, 2 Pac. 708, strictly construing act authorizing regulation of liquor traffic by municipality; Kirkham v. Russell, 76 Va. 961, on construction of powers conferred by city charter; Martin v. Whitman County, 1 Wash. 536, 20 Pac. 600, strictly construing powers of county commissioners. Cited also in Thomas v. Richmond, 12 Wall. 353, 20 L. 456, denying validity of bills issued as currency by city in absence of legislative authority therefor; Pratt v. Litchfield, 62 Conn. 118, 25 Atl. 463, holding bylaw, establishing fire-limits within municipality, vold; Seeger v. Mueller, 133 Ill. 94, 24 N. E. 514, holding school trustees, when constituted a quasi-municipal corporation, could exercise only express or fairly implied powers; State v. Greene County, 54 Mo. 568, dissenting opinion, majority sustaining validity of bond issue; Bloom v. Xenia, 32 Ohio St. 465, requiring strict observance of law by town council in passing ordinance; Muscoe v. Commonwealth, 86 Va. 446, 10 S. E. 535, holding city could not by ordinance confer greater powers of arrest on police than constables possessed.

Municipal corporations.- State legislature, unless restrained by Constitution, may authorize municipal corporations, either with or without sanction of popular vote, to take stock in work of internal Improvement, and issue bonds to pay therefor, p. 330.

Cited and principle applied in Mitchell v. Burlington, 4 Wall. 274, 18 L. 352, sustaining validity of bond issue in aid of plankroad, made under charter provision authorizing city to borrow money: Thompson v. Perrine, 103 U. 8. 812, 26 L. 615, holding State legis

ANN