(DfBt7ict COurt, E. D. New York.
CoLLIIlION-A'1"l'IIlJlPl' TO PASS VEIlSEL AHEAD-NEGLIGENT' SHEER.
The steam-boat M., going at night with a strong flood-tide up the East river, overtook two Ilteam.boats, 801110 going np stream. When in a narrow part of the river, the steam-boats ahead gave two Whistles, and stopped to await· the passing of the tug I., which, with a car-float along-side, was coming down stream near the Brooklyn shore. The ltI., witbout stopping, ported; around the boats:ahead, and· discovered· the tng and car-float;· 80 near that it was lmpossible.to escape collision. BeZd, that the cause of the collision was the improper sheer 01 the ltI.. nnder the stern of the boats ahead.
In Admiralty. The steam-boat at I1ight with a strong flood-tide up the East river; overtook two steam"boats, also going up stream. When about off Ninth or Tenth streets, New York, in a nanow part of the river, the steam-boats ahead gave two whistles, and stopped to await the passing of the tug Intrepid, which, with a car-float along-side, was cqming down stream near the Brooklyn shore. The Morrisiana, without stopping, ported, to pass around the boats ahead, and discovered the tug and carfloat so near that it was impossible to escape collision. Wing, SlunMly &- Putnam, for claimant. George A. Black, for libelant. BENEDICT, J. In my opinion the cause of the collision whicp.,gave rise to this action was a sudden sheer of the taken under the stern of the ferry-boat ahead of her, and when. the Intrepid was so near .that it was impossible to escape cpHision. An effort bas been made to locate the pla,ce of this sheer at a great distance from the ferry-boat, but the effort has failed. It is impossible for the Morrisiana, in my opinion, to escape the effect, of the sworn statement of Capt. Geer, her master, made the next day after the CQllision, wherein he says: "When within about a hundred feet of the stem of the ferry-boat, weporled our helm. As we passed. the stem oftheJe,rryboat, we discovered the tow." The libel m\1st be dismissed, with costs.
. . ".
G.Benedict,J!lsq., of the New York bar; .,
aZ.v.. FRY et aZ.
(OiJrcuit Oourt, W.P. Arkansas. February Term, 1891.)
FOLLOWrnG STATB PRAOTIOB.-.t\TTAQHME.NT-LEVIllS. .
A circuit court of the United States, by reason of the existence of section 915 ot the Revised Statutes of the United States, administers the attachment law of the state where such court is held; alldwhen the statute of the state provides for sue. cessivillevies, 88 well as for a method of settling all priorities of the several liens '. arising fromsuoceseive leVies, the marshal.of the United States court may make ·a levy of a writ of aitaenment '8ub modo, and such levy will be sufficient, when the property is already in· the custody of the law by virtue of a prior levy upon a 'wrltissued from a state oourt, to enable a plaintiff to assert his lien if the attachment is sustained, as it mat effect the property remaining the satisfaction of the flrst attachment. (SUHabus by the Oourt.)
At Law. This is a suit brought by .plaintiffs by attachment against the defendants. The writ Of attachment was duly issued, and the same was by the marshal levied upon the property of the defendants,but not taken into actual possession by the marshal for the reason that the property was in the actual possession of the sheriff of Crawford county by virtue of prior writs of attachment issued by the circuit court of the state. These facts are recited in the levy of the marshal. The defendants file their motion to quash the levy made, or attempted. to be made, in obedience to the writ of attachment issued in said cause, because it waS no levy in law, for the reason that the property was already in the possession of the sheriff ofCrfl,wford county, and was therefore in custody of a court of competent jurisdiction, and not subject to the levy of the writ ofattachment issued in this case by this courtjthat the marshal could hot make a legal levy without taking actual possession of the property, and this he could not do because it was already in the custody of. an officer of another court by virtue of a prior valid_writ of attachment is'Bued by tbat court. . Sanq.el8 &; H1ll, for plaintiffs. Du Coffey, for defendants.
'PARltER., J. As a general rule, actual physical possession is necessary to constitute It valid seizure under It writ of fieri facias or a writ of attachment, unless there be garnishment· pl'oceedings; then service· of interrogatories on the garnishee suffices. Section 915 of the Revised Stat.. utes of the United States is as follo:Ws: "In common-law causes in the circuit and district courts the plaintiff shall be entitled to similar remedies by attachment or other process against the property of the defendant which are now provided by the laws of the state in which such court is held for the courts thereof; and such circuit or district courts may from time to time, by general rules, adopt such state laws as may be enforced in the states where they are held, in relation to attachment and other process: provided, that similar preliminary affidavits or proofs and similar security as required by such state Ill. \VS shall be first fur-