THE OUTU A. OARBnUlT. 511 �18 baeed. In the case of Woodruff v. Tfenck, 6 La. Ann. Buccessive gamishments of the same debt under process from courts of two different states were recognized as valid, and some suggestions were made as to the proper mode of pro- tecting the garnisheo against being obliged to pay the debt twice in such a case. Mr. Drake, iia fais work on Attach- ments, seems to approve of this decisionj while he recognizes in its f ull force the rule laid down in Taylor v. Carryl. Drake on Attachments, (5th Ed.) §§ 223, 251, 455. �The case ol The Lottawanna, 20 Wall. 201, is cited for the proposition that this court cannot recognize or enforce, in the distribution of proceeds, the rights of a garnishee under state process. In that case an attempt was Inade to garnishee funds in the registry of the court. That, of course, was im- possible, the fund being most clearly in cmtodia legis, and beyond the reach of attaohment. It was also held that the court bas no power to distribute surplus and remuants among the creditors of the owner, even his judgment creditors, against his objection. It affords no authority for the propo- sition that a lien or legal claim of any kind whatsoever upon the fund, attaching thereto before it cornes into the posses-^ sion of the court, will not be recognized and enforced as against the owner after the satisfaction of those maritime claims which are first entitled to be paid. !the remaining question is, which of these parties bas the better right to have the fund marshalled for his benefit? Courts of admi- ralty will, in proper cases, apply the equitable rule, that where one crediter has two funds to resort to and anpther bas but one, the creditor having two will be compelled to look to that fund to which the other has no recourse. This has been applied in case of seamen who have an equal claim on ship and freight, and to whom it is a matter of indiffer- ence out of which they are paid. The Sailor Pnnce, 1 Ben. 234, 461 ; and see In re Bank of Nova Scotia, 4 Fed. Bep. 667. In this case the mortgagee insists that the sailors be paid out of the freight, to protect his claim against the vessel. On the other hand, the attaching creditor insists that they be ��� �
