The star of Pascagoula. [volume] (Pascagoula, Miss.) 1873-1878, 1878-02-22

This is a rule made upon the mar
shall to show cause, if any he can,
why he shall not discharge from levy
and seizure a number of logs and
quantity OF lumber seized by him un.
der a writ OF repIevin sued out by
the United States against said de-
PENDANT. The grounds upon which
the rule is based, are that before
the elzure was made by the mars
shall, the state OF Mississippi had
sued out in the circuit court of the
county of Jackson, IN this state, a
writ OF replevin against said defen>
dant by virtue of which the same
logs and lumber we're seized by the
sheriff, and that under the p~roviS-
ions of the replevin act OF the state,
the defendant had executed his bond
with approved sureties conditioned
for the forthcoming 0 fsaid property
to abide the judgment of the court
in said suit, and that the property
was so in his possession under said
bond at the time Of the seizure by
the marshal under the process fr ON
this court.
There is no controversy as to
the facts stated ; the only question
being as to whether or not the pro
perty so held by the defendant was
subject 10 seizure by the marshal
under the writ Of replevin so in his
hands the validity of both replevin
writS being admitted.
1t has become a well settled rule
since the foundation of the Federal
government, that when property is
legolIy in the possession of the Of
fcers of the state court, it will not
be disturbed by the officers OF the
Federal courts, and that when le>
gally in possession of the officers OF
the Federal courts, it will not be
interfered with by the officers Of the
state courts. Any other rule would
lead to conflicts, and mar the much
desired harmonious action of IL
complex system of government.
The important question to be cons
sidered is as to whether or not the
property, after it was released to the
defendant upon his forthcoming
bond, was still in the custody of
the circuit court of Jackson county.
There are several adjudicated
cases by the supreme court OF this
state, recognizing the right of a
claimant to personal property, to
institute his action Of replevin and
have the property seized in, and
taken out of the possession OF a
levying officer under writs of at
tachment, and feri f%acias, though
issuing out of different state courts,
but no case can be found where it
has been taken out of the possess
sion of an officer holding under the
writ Of replevin. The reason given
for permitting the seizure of the
property in the possession OF a
levyiug officer, under a writ of at
tachment or feri %iacias, is, that the
officer levying the process is directed
10 levy only upon the defendants
property, and constitutes the officer
the Judge of what property belongs
to the defendant, and if he seizes
property belonging to any one else,
his process is no protection to him,
and he becomes liable as a wrong
doer as any one else. The same
doctrine is held by the supreme
court of the United States in the
case Of Buck We. Colboth, 3 Wal-
lace, 1874.
The rule laid down by the su-
preme court is binding upon this
court ; and under which the levy
made by the marshal in this case,
must be held as without authority,
and void, unless the position taken