Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 F. 31

Patterson v. Mater

United States Circuit Court for the District of Colorado

Decided December 31, 1885.)

United States Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · decided 1885-12-31

<p>1. Replevin — PROCESS PROM STATE COURT — GOODS IN POSSESSION OI’ MARSIIAT7.</p> <p>Goods in possession of a marshal cannot be taken in replevin by process from a state court.</p> <p>2. Sauk — Suit ok Bond — Jurisdiction.</p> <p>Where such a proceeding is attempted, the marshal may sue on the bond in his own name, in the federal court, irrespective of the cilizenship of himself and the obligors in the bond, and so may any one beneficially interested in the bond.</p> <p>3. Same — Citizenship—Assignment.</p> <p>Where the parties beneficially interested are citizens in a state other than that of the obligors, they may sue in the federal courts, with, and probably without, an assignment.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1902

2 counsel of record

Relies on Freeman v. Howe · Coal Company v. Blatchford · Walden v. Skinner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885-12-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶11. Replevin — PROCESS PROM STATE COURT — GOODS IN POSSESSION OI’ MARSIIAT7.

¶2Goods in possession of a marshal cannot be taken in replevin by process from a state court.

¶32. Sauk — Suit ok Bond — Jurisdiction.

¶4Where such a proceeding is attempted, the marshal may sue on the bond in his own name, in the federal court, irrespective of the cilizenship of himself and the obligors in the bond, and so may any one beneficially interested in the bond.

¶53. Same — Citizenship—Assignment.

¶6Where the parties beneficially interested are citizens in a state other than that of the obligors, they may sue in the federal courts, with, and probably without, an assignment.

¶7Motion for New Trial.

¶8F. M. llardbrook, for plaintiff.

¶9C. 1. Thomson, for defendant.

¶10Brewer, J.

¶11I see nothing in the motion for a new trial that calls for hesitation or admits of doubt. The replevin proceedings by Do Walt were unwarranted. Goods in possession of 'a marshal of the United States cannot be taken in replevin by process from a state court. Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450.

¶12*32Where such a proceeding is attempted, an undertaking given for the return of the goods may properly be treated as nothing0 more than a forthcoming bond, — a mere incident to the action in which possession of the goods was taken by the marshal. In such a case the marshal may maintain an action in his own name in the federal court; and this, irrespective of the question of the citizenship of himself and the obligors in the bond. So may any one beneficially interested in the bond. Jurisdiction in these subordinate and ancillary proceedings rests upon the jurisdiction acquired in the original action.

¶13Further, the marshal is a mere nominal party, having no pecuniary interest. The plaintiffs, citizens of a state other than that of the obligors, are alone beneficially interested. As such they may sue in the federal courts, with, and probably without, an assignment. Browne v. Strode, 5 Cranch, 303; Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Pet. 293; McNutt v. Bland, 2 How. 9; Coal Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172; Huff v. Hutchinson, 14 How. 586; Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 588.

¶14The motion for a new trial will be overruled.

/26/f1d/31 · .json · Public domain