THE OUVIA A. CABBIflAK. 507 �Thb Oijyu A. Cabrigan., �{Dieirict Court, S. B. New York. February 17, 1881.) �1. Attachment bt State Coukt — Gabkishbb — Conflict of Jurib- DICTION— Marsh ALLiNa Assbtb— Bbambn — Moktgagek— Attach- ma Creditors — Succesbivb Qahnishmbnts UndBr Procebs from CoDRTS OF Different Jtjrisdictionb. �Service of monitiou by the United States marshal for seamen's �"wages, upon parties owing freight moneys, does not place the fund �beyond the reach of an attachment subsequently issued from the �Btate court to the sherifE of the county, in an action brought by an- �, other against the owner of the vessel. �The fund is not taken into actual custody by the oflScers of the United States court, as in the case of Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583. The relation of debtor and creditor still exists between the garnishee and the defendant, and does not interfere with a second garnishment, wherebythe fund will be bound, subject to be defeated if the fund is called in under the first garnishment by the judgment of this court. �In such a case there is no danger of conflict of jurisdictions, nor of Any interference by one ofBcer with the possession acquired by another. �Case of The Lotiawanna, 20 Wall. 201, distinguished. �Where, in a suit for seamen's wages, this court ordered the decree therefor to be satisfled out of the proceeds of the vessel and freight, and a mortgagee claiming a lien on the vessel by virtue of his mort- gage petitioned to have the sailors paid out of the freight in order to protect his claim, and a creditor of the owner of the vessel, having a subsequent lien on the freight by attachment issuing out of the «tate court against the owner, asked to have the seamen first paid out of the ship in order to protect his lien, — �On motion to dismiss the petition of the latter, the question of the respective rights of the parties being also submitted : �Held, that the attaching creditor, having parted with no value for his lien on the freight whlch attached af ter that of the mortgagee on the vessel, had no greater equity against the mortgagee to have the assets marshalled in hia favor than the debtor himself would have had at the time his attachment was laid. Therefore, the mortgagee had the better equity to have the assets marshalled, and will be en- titled, on proving his mortgage, to have the seamen first paid out of the freight so far as that will go, the whole fund being insufflcient to pay his claim and that of the seamen. �In Admiralty. �F. A. WUcox, for mortgagee. �H. Putnam, for attaching creditor. ��� �
