TREADWELL,,; SEYMOIDt.
581
provision of statute relied upon by the plaintiff as specially authorizing thecissuance of mesne process of attachment without the district" if within the state, IS the sixth section of the practice act of June 1, 1872. Rev. St. §'915: ' "l:lee.9l5. In common-law causes in the circuit and district courts, the plaintiJfshall be entitled to similar remedies, by attachment or other process, against tJ1e property of the defendant, which lue now prOVided by the laws o,f the such court is held for theqourts thereof; and snch,circuitor district 'couits may from time to time, by general rules, adopt such state Jaws as may btl hi force in the states where they are held. in relation to attachments and other process: prOVided, that similar preliminary affidavits or proofs, and similar security. as required by such state laws, shall be first furnished by the party·aeeking such attachment or otHer remedy."
clause ofthis seotion gives the right specified therein. in abs()lute terms, on the basis of state laws existing when the section was adopted., The second clause authorizes the circuit and district courts to adopt any state laws relating to the subject that may be subsequently enacted. Spear, Fed. Jud. 660. When this act was adopted, (1872,) the Code· of Procedure of the state of New York (Code, § 231) provided that a· warrant of attachment should be directed to the bheriff of the county where property of the defendant might be, and that, where prop.. erty of the defendant was situated indifferent counties, a warrant might be issued to each county simultaneously. A similar remedy by ment, against property of a defendant sued in a federal court, in a state containing more than one district, could be secured to the plaintiff in such action Gnly by extending the attachment to property of the defendant without the district, but within the state; and such seems to be the plain meaning of these two acts, federal and state, (act of 1872; Code, § 231,) when collated. The positive legislation, therefore, specially au'thorizingthe issue of process beyond the district, which the supreme court, in: %land v. Sprague,held to be essential, but·not then in existence,is foUnd in the act of 1872, unless other provisions of statute, or the principles of interpretation approved by the federal courts, operate to restrict its meaning. This act has'been construed. in Chittenden v. Darden, 2 Woods, 437; SaddllJr v. HudsO'Ii, 2'Curt.6; Nazro v. Cragin, 8 Dill. 474; & parte Railway Gl., 103 U. S. 794, Anderson v. Shaffer; 10 Fed. Rep. 266. These cases hold that it does not confer upon the Unit;. ed States courts jurisdiction to institute suits by the process of foreign attachment, and that it authorizes attachment only when the court has acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The reasoning, however, by which the conclusions are reached, is the same as that of Toland v. Sprague, aupra. From the passage of the original judiciary act down, there .has been in an express proviso peremptorily restricting the jurisdiction of the circuit and district courts to cases where the defendaIl.t is. an inhabitant of. the distriot; or found therein, at the time ofservirigthe writ. Judiciary Act 1789, §11; Rev. St. U.S. § 739. (The Illodification contained in the act of 1887 ianot to the qqesti9n raised bere.) The authorities cited, both prior s.n(l subsequent to the.act of 1872, hold that this proviso is not affected by general
:'a
prQvisi. stllte process! and-: procedure, rqr i.curing to a >litigaI!l1l10,:s. fedel'alcol1tt: similar remedies b;Y"attachmeht .to;those· :thelitigantidn:al state court. That cOnclusion is reached both as an inference from the course of legislation, and' by: coo.shleraticmsof:reasOD1.311d,justice; f1lr'!'notbingcan be more .unjust than ,that a person. should ,ha:ve: hiiuights;passed upon aniLfinallydecided by upon Hlm),b,Y which he '#llll'i'ave notIce; whicJ9wlUenable.lhm to appearhnd defend' himself." :Tdktiid v. case as . full 0(fS'7·2, the secured, \without in anyway confli.cting with the proviso which restricts thejuris· diction of the circuit. court. The 'defendant is personally before the paving been sen:edwithprocess. JIe had abundant ,notice, and, by pleading.to merits, admits that this COUl:t has jurisdiction of his person; and that it has juris4icti(m of. the suboftlle the act of May 20, 1826, ,(Rl;lV, St. U. S. § 985,) giveait jurisdiction of .this very property, by JProvi4ing that execution;p·flOn sl,lChjudgment as may be entered in this run into, and be executed in, any part.of the state. Neither J'l;lallon nor forbids our construing the act of 1872 (ReY. St..§ 915) so .o,s W,entitle tpep1aintiff in this.ca.se to a warrant of which IIjIlY. rUB. against property of the defendant in any zeq:uniy of ·.· $ ill no proper sense enlarges the Juri!3diction of the ,fEl,<il.er,a,l courts. . . ,&ince tlle pasBag&jof,theil,ct of 1872, the Code ofPr()cedure of this ..tate has been superseded by 'C(Hle ,Civil Proc. :1876, c. 448; Code CivilPrqc. 1877, § 416. The only-modification, in t/:}e practice upon attachment, which at all affects this case, .ia the provision in seption.641 that. the warrant may be directed, tpthe sheriff of a partiQu,larcoullty, or generally to the .sheriff of any county:. " 'I'his. provision., i ",hich is the one now in. force, and in ,fQrmityto which the "'llJ'l'ant is,llilelJted, was, with aU others relating to p,ttachment contained .in- the New. :CQQ.e, adopted by r\11eof this court, in conformity to tile ,provisions of the act of 1872, (Rev. St. § on October .The motion. to vacate attachment is denied, the /iltay vacated·
act
.... '/. "'';
..
(Ci7!cUU Oourt,W;'D: Mi88bUr'£, "J:;,-Il:'
w. D.
March 8.
,10 ;MmuOIP,lLCORPOH4TION,h-Vioi»: BOND8H-JillPLIBD ·t'ROlllIllB. _ ', ". :, Bonds.of a p,ity. being voidbec,,:u,e iJ!,ll,ll!l<;lundor an act ,COIISt. Mp. 1865, , shall Ii . its credtt to,any:corperatlon unlesstwD-:lthitds. of.the qualifled voters assent theteto, tb.e qa1:\not maintain. an act;ion money had and to recover the amount pmd to the citY for such'bonds; aS,the city having n6power to .create nobiiplied ipr{)mise can IlriiefQl' its payment, notwithstalIdihg, Gen.