Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/181/562.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:51:10+00:00

Document:
Messrs. W. W. Dudley, L. T. Michener, W. E. Crews, and J. H. Cobb for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. S. M. Stockslager, George C. Heard, and Arthur K. Delaney for defendant in error.
The defendant was at the time of the taking of the goods marshal of Alaska, and he justified the taking under and by virtue of attachments issued out of the District Court against Levy, one in the case of Powers Dry Goods Co. v. Levy, and the [181 U.S. 562, 563] other in the West Coast Grocery Co. v. Levy, and claimed that the transfers by Levy were in fraud of his creditors.
In the attachment suits against Levy summons was issued, but not served, and substituted service was afterward obtained by publication. The affidavits for the attachments did not mention the amount of indebtedness claimed, and the sufficiency of the substituted service and the validity of the judgment based upon it are attacked on that ground.
It is also contended that the levies of the attachments were invalid; and error is assigned on the admission of the testimony and in giving instructions to the jury.
'1. That the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff (specifying the amount of such indebtedness over and above all legal set-offs or counterclaims) upon a contract.' 1 Hill's (Or.) Code, ed. 1887, 145.
'I hereby certify that I have executed the within writ of attachment by levying upon the personal property of the within-named defendant, to wit: All of the goods, wares, and merchandise situated in the one-story building one door south of B. M. Behrends' bank, on Seward street between Second and Third streets in the town of Juneau, district of Alaska, by posting a copy of said writ of attachment on the front door of said building; also, eleven (11) cases of boots and shoes consigned to the within-named defendant, Joseph Levy, situated in the warehouses of the Pacific Coast Steamship Company, by delivering a notice and copy of the within writ of attachment on H. F. Robinson, the agent of said Pacific Coast Steamship Company, and have all of the above-described personal property of the above-named defendant now in my possession.
The truth of this was not questioned, and it must be accepted as established that at the time of the levy the property was in the possession of the plaintiff. What is the effect of it? In other words, was the levy made, as described in the return of the defendant, legal?
'The sheriff to whom the writ is directed and delivered shall execute the same without delay as follows: . . .
'2. Personal property, capable of manual delivery to the sheriff, and not in the possession of a third person, shall be attached by taking it into his custody.
'3. Other personal property shall be attached by leaving a certified copy of the writ, and a notice specifying the property attached, with the person having the possession of the same.' 1 Hill's (Or.) Code, ed. 1887, 149, subs. 2 and 3.
'Litchenthaler and Simpson were, on the 9th of November, 1875, the owners of a certain mare, the property in dispute, upon which they executed a chattel mortgage of that date in favor of the Granger Market Company. This mortgage was duly recorded, and remained unsatisfied at the commencement of this action. Subsequently Litchenthaler and Simpson delivered the mare to the plaintiff upon a second chattel mortgage [181 U.S. 562, 566] by them in his favor, executed subsequently to the one in favor of the Granger Market Company.
The same principle was expressed in Lewis v. Birdsey, 19 Or. 164, 26 Pac. 623, and in Batchellor v. Richardson, 17 Or. 334, 21 Pac. 392.
The cases cited by defendant in error are not to the contrary. Page v. Grant, 9 Or. 116, was a direct attack, after execution returned unsatisfied, upon a sale claimed to be fraudulent. Lyons v. Leahy, 15 Or. 8, 13 Pac. 643, and Philbrick v. O'Connor, [181 U.S. 562, 567] 15 Or. 15, 13 Pac. 612; and Crawford v. Beard, 12 Or. 447, 8 Pac. 537, were creditor's bills brought to set aside deeds for real estate after return of execution unsatisfied. It follows that the levy was invalid and could constitute no defense to the defendant, and the jury should have been so instructed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.