#### KENNEDY v. BRENT.

The marshal of the district of Columbia is bound to serve *188a subpoena in chancery as soon as he reasonably can; and the service of such subpoerna, in case of a *chancery attachment*in Virginia, will make the garnishee liable if he pays away the money after notice of the subpoena.

*187ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Coiumbia, sitting at Alexandria, in an action *on*th- *case*by Kennedy against Brent, marshal of the district of *188Columbia, for the neglect of his. deputy in not sérving a *^pbena in chancery,*cqmmoñly called a chancery attachmenr, in.due time, whereby the plaintiff lost his debt,

The. declaration stated that one Johnston, who did not reside in the district of Columbia, was indebted to the piajnC¡ff a resident of Alexandria in that district, and that one Hampson wag indebted to Johnston ; that TM or<^er to subject the money in Hampson’s hands to the payment of the debt due from. Johnston, the plaintiff, on the 33th of December, 1804, filed, his bill in chancery in the .. circuit court of the district for the county of Alexandria, and caused to.be issued a *sub-p^na'm*chancery against Johnston, and Hampson to answer the bill, which *subpoena*was then and there delivered to'the defendant’s deputy to be executed: and was prosecuted.with *an intention*that the debt due from Hampson to Johnston would be. subjected to the payment. of the debt due from Johnston, to .the plaintiff. Nevertheless,1 the defendant, by his said deputy, not regarding his office of marshal in the-true execution thereof, but contriving and fraudulently intending to hinder the plaintiff of his proper remedy for the recovery of his debt'aforesaid, did not serve the. said «Milana, in chancery upon thé said Hampson-within a reasonable time after receiving the same to be executed as aforesaid, but negle cted to serve the said process, without any reasonable cáuse for so doing, fora long time, to wit, for the space of four months and upwards, by means of which said neglect the said defendant altogether lost the effect of his said suit.in chancery against the said Johnston and Hampson as aforesaid, wherefore the plaintiff saith'he is injured, and hath sustained damage,, &c.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a verdict, by consent, was rendered for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon a case agreed, which stated that on the 13th of December, 1804, the plaintiff filed his bill in chancery against Johnston and Hampson in the common form of a bill for a chancery attachment in Virginia. And that the clerk of the court, at the instance of the plaintiff, issued a process commonly *189called g chancery attachment, being a *subpoena*in the common form to answer a bill, in chancery, upon which Was the following endorsement, viz, Memorandum. The object of the»bill this day filed in this case is to stay the moneys and effects of the defendant Johnston in the hands of the defendant Hampson, to satisfy a debt due from the defendant Johnston to. the complain* ant.

(Signed) “ G. Heneare.”

. That this process, shortly after it was iásu d, was put into the hands of W. Fox, one of the defendant’s deputies to be executed, and might have been served by him if he had endeavoured to-have served the same, but it so happened that he did not serve the same, and that it afterwards got into,the hands of Lewis Summers, another of the defendant’s deputies, who served the same on the 20th day of June, 1805rand made the following- return thereupon: “I received this attachment shortly after it issued, and delivered it to W. Fox, D. M. to servé, who shortly after left the'town of Alexandria, leaving in the marshal’s office two bundles of process, one marked *‘process*served,’ and the other *'■process not*served.’ In the first bundle was this subpoena in chancéry. On or about May or June last I was informed it had not then been served. I then examined this process and found it without, any endorsement, and took the earliest opportunity to inquire of Mr. Fox as to the service of the subposna, Who informed me he did not recollect having served it. I then, on the 20th of June, served the same on Bryan Hampson. The other defendant Johnston not found. ■

(Signed) “ L. Summers, D. M.”

Whereupon it was agreed that the verdict should be subject to the opinion oí the court upon the following questions:

“1. As the marshal by his deputy executed the process on the'20th of June, 1805, before the day ap*190pointed for the return thereof, and returned the same on tjie return day thereof, whether he was in law bound to have served the same, *if in his power so to do,*at any time previous to the said 20th of June, 1805, unless; he was- specially required by the plaintiff to serve-the same, notwithstanding, he received the same as marshal on -the day on which this said process was issued.

• **. 2. Whethér the endorsement on the said process of subpoena would, after service thereof, create any legal impediment to the payment of the money over to the said Johnston by the said Bryan Hampson, and would, in case of such payment after service, make, the' said Bryan Hampson personally liable for the amount-'so paid over.

“ If the court should be of opinion that the said marshal was not bound to have served the said process, if in his power to do so at any time previous to the 20th of June, 1805, (unless he was specially required by the plaintiff to serve the same, notwithstanding die received the same as marshal on the day on Which the said process issued,) then the judgment is to be rendered for the defendant.

“ And if, under the circumstances mentioned in the second question, the court should be of opinion, that the said Bryan Hampson would not be personally liable for the amount so' paid over,. and that his not being personally liable would be sufficient to discharge the marshal from any liability in this case, then judgment is to be rendered for the defendant.

“ But if both those questions are decided for the plaintiff, then judgment upon the verdict is to be ren-. dered for him.” . .

The court below, was of opinion that the statement of the case was not full enough to justify a verdict for the plaintiff, and directed'judgment tobe entered up for the defendant; whereupon the plaintiff brought, his writ of error..

*191*Swann,*for plaintiff in error.

The marshal is bound to serve all process put into bis hands fot service, as soon as possible, and if he does not, he is liable, in a special action on the case, to any party who suffers any injury by his neglect. *Bac. Abr.*tit. *Sheriff.*

The service of the subpoena in this case would have bound Kennedy, and if he should pay over the money after service of the subpoena, he would do it at his peril. If there should be a decree against him he could not avoid it by showing that he paid away the money after notice. The decree would relaté back to the time of notice.

*E. J.*Lee, contra.

. The marshal is not bound to serve process as soon ás he pan by any pqssibility serve it, which was the principle which the court below was called upon, by the case stated, to sanction.

It is sufficient in such' a case as this, if he serve it at any time before the return day. The endorsement is no part of the process. The marshal was not bound to serve *that,, ox*to give notice of it to the defendant. AH that he was commanded to do was to summon the defendant to answer the bill according to the command of. the subpoena. The endorsement was a mere private notice. It might have been served by any person, and would have been as obligatory upqn Hampson as if served by the marshal. This was the opinion of *Chancellor Wythe,*in the case of *Davis*v. *Fulton.*

*February*28.

Marshall, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the couft to the following effect.

The questions intended to be submitted to the court were, 1st. Whether the marshal was bound to serve this process as soon as he reasonably could; and, 2. *192Whether the service of such process would have made fiampson liable iti case he had paid over the .money after such service. ' On these points the. court- has no douht; But the. case ’13 imperfectly stated.. It does not appear that the plaintiff has sustained any' loss by the neglect of the officer to serve the process, and for this reason

The judgment is affirmed.