GILBERT V. QUIMBY, 113 �tan be marshalled here. The orator urges against the defend- ant's claim of priority of attachment that no attachment of the dividend in the hands of the assignee, on process ont of the state court, could be made. �That the dividend was not attachable on process from the state courts would seem to be quite clear. While in the hands of the assignee it would be a part of the estate of the bank- rupt in the custody of the court. It would not be held the property of the debt.or, but would only be property that would become his when he sbould get it. He could not maintain any suit against the assignee for it, nor obtain it by any legal process other than by application to the district court having control of the fund as a party to the proceedings in that court. Money in the hands of a disbursing officer of the United States, due to a private person, eanuot be attached on process against such person out of a state court, because the money wiil not be his, but will remain the property of the United States until it is paid to him. Bucluman v. Alexander, 4 How. 20. Neither can any fund be so attached that it is so situated that the debtor in the process is not entitled to sue for and recover it. McLaughlin v. Swann, 18 How. 217; Gas- sett V. Grout, i Met. 486-488. These reasons are appli- cable to a dividend in the hands of an assignee. Colby v. Coates, 6 Cush. 558; Cappd v. Smith, 47 K. 312, and Grant v. Harding, in note; In re Bridgman, 2 Nat. Bank Eeg. 252. �The order of the district court would be that the dividend be paid to Alden Adams, and there would not appear to be any tenable ground on which any other court or officer could order it paid to any one else, or order that payment to another should be payment to him, or answer the effect.of the order. And if the attachments were both wholly inoperative, as the orator claims and it seems they are, there is no ground left for making the plaintifï in the first attachment or the attach- ing ofEcers parties here. Payment of the dividend to them by the assignee on such process would be no more than pay- ment to them or any one else without process, and he would remain subject to the order to pay to Alden Adams the same �v.l,no.3— 8 ��� �
