which courts exempt instruments of government from seizure, it should borne in mind that the same rule, so applied; would exempt the property and instruments' used by cities and oounties, such municipal corporations being themselves mere instrumentalities of the state for the convenient administration of local government. Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. 8.511; Klein v. New Orleans j 99 U. S.149;TMFiqelity,16 Blatchf. 569; The ProtectQr,20 Fed. Rep ·.207. The result of that rule, so applied, would therefore be that no penalty could be enforced for re" fusal to submit to inspeotion. any of the numerous stellmpolice. boata, fire extinguishing steamers, relief-boats, ice-boats, and other steam-vessels used by the large seaboard citiesjand they woull;! ply among the vessels in crowded ports, and lie at the docks among. other shipping, free from supervision ,of any kind prescribed ,by congressional ments. The question of. pUblic policy would therefore not be so nano,", a one as might seem upon first impression. .. With regard to the alleged violations of the sectionsspe,cially appli., cable to steamers carrying passengers ,or merchandise, I do not find that.· these steamers are liable. They n.ever carry either passengers or mElr" chandise for hire, and if persons or property, not required' for the public service in which these vessels are intended to beemploY'ed, ar:e by· the allowance of those in charge of them sometimes carried, it is no,t by the authority of the state, and not for compensation, and not within. th& purpose for which they. are maintained. The sections relating to. ing passengers and mercl1andise are applicabletoa.steam-,vessel solely because ofthe use to which she is applied, and I do nQtfind that theso vessels are so used. I will sign a decree, for the penalties for failure to have the hulls boilers inspected in the years 1885 and ' 1 8 8 6 , . , .
(Circuit Oourt. 1.
STORY and others.
Oarolina. Mav Term, 1887.)
w: D. NO'rtk
FEDERAL COURTS-ENFORCING PENALTY lMl'oSED BY STATE STATUTE-MARSHAL. ,-
The federal court bas no power to enforce against the United States marshal a penalty imposed on a sheriff by Code N. C. § 2079, which provides that every sheriff shall execute all process, to him legally directed. within his county, and make due return thereof, penalty of forfeiting $100 for neglect, where such process shall have been delivered to him 20 days before the sitting of the court, etc.
A federal court has no power to execute the penal laws of a state by enforcing penalties against federal officers for neglect of special duties imposed by state statutes on county officers. A rule adopted by the federal court regulating the method of serving its process, while the practice of serving process by the state courts remains uncertain, is binding on the United States marshal. and is not in conflict with that the practice and mode of proceedRev. St. U. S. 1\ 914, which ing in civil actions, in the CIrcuit and district courts, shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice and modes of proceeding in the courts of record of the state.
SAME-SERVICE OF PROCESS-CoNFORMING TO STATE PRACTICE,
SAME-REJECTING PROVISION OF STATE LAW.
While the federal courts will conform their modes of procedure in civil actions, as near as may be. to the statutes of the state, they will reject any subordinate provision of the state statutes which in their judgment will unwisely incumber the administration of law, or tend to defeat the ends of justice in their tribunals.
Motion to Enforce a Penalty of $100 against David Settle, marshal, for not duly executing process. Moore & Cummings, for the motion. R. M. Douglas, for the Marshal.
DICK, J. The affidavit upon which this motion is founded alleges that a writ oj summons was placed in the hands of the marshal more than 20 days before the term of the court to which the same was returnable, together with his lawful fees for service, and the writ was not executed. Notice of motion was accepted by the marshal, and in his answer he admits the allegations of the affidavit; but insists, by way of explanation and defense, that he was not furnished by the plaintiff with copies of the summons to be delivered to the several defendants residing in different and distant localities, in accordance with the course and practice of the court, and the fees for preparing such copies were nof paid or tendered. The counsel of the plaintiff, in their argument and brief, insists thaf the manifest purpose of section 914, Rev. St. U. S., was to bring abouf uniformity in the law of procedure in the federal and state courts in the same locality, and requires the federal courts, in all common-law actions, to conform their proceedings, as near as may be, to the laws of the 8tat£ in which they are held, any rule of court to the contrary notwitlu3tanding. v.31F.no.13-49