ANDBESON V. SHAFFEB. 267 �Frank W. Shaffer, citizen of and resident in the state of Texas, if he be found in your district." This summons was af terwards returned by the marshal with the following indorsement : "I received this writ at Columbus, 12 noon, July 22, 1881, and have been unable to lind Frank W. Shaffer." The return of the marshal was filed on the eighteenth day of August, 1881. �On the sixteenth day of July, 1881, upon affidavit filed, there was issued ont of said court attachaient and garnishee process against the Fairfield County Bank, Peters & Traut, Charles Frederick Shaffer, administrator, and Charles P. Shaffer, requiring them to appear and answer touching the money, property, or credits in their possession or control. AU these were served by the marshal on the parties on the twenty-second of July, 1881, and filed August 18, 1881. �Afterwards Charles F. Shaffer filed bis motion to discharge and dis- miss the attachment and garnishee process, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. The record in this case shows that the defendant was a citizen of Texas, and it further shows that he was not found and served within this district ; clearly, therefore, under the provisions of section 739, this action could not be brought and maintained against the defendant in this district. This being so, can the attachment aijd garnishee process be maintained against the property of the defendant under and by virtue of the provisions of sec- tion 915, U. S. Statutes? Whether if the circuit court of this dis- trict had adopted by general rules the attachment laws of the state of Ohio we could maintain jurisdiction, is not necessary to consider, as no such rule has been promulgated. Without entering into any discussion or analysis of the provisions of this section, I am of the opinion that it authorizes an attachment in those cases only where the court has acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. GhittenderCs Case, 2 Woods, 437; Saddler t. Hudson, 2 Curtis, 6; Nazro v. Cragin, 3 Dillon, 474 ; Levy v. Fitzpatrick, 15 Pet. 171 ; Tollnd V. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300; Ex parte Ry. Co. 103 U. S. 794. �The motion to dismiss the attachment proceedings must therefore be granted. ��� �
