832 FEDERAL REPORTER. �to the suit in the state court, for he was never served with process, and never appeared. �The Old Colony Steam-boat Company, who were the gar- nishees in the state court, are not defendants here, for this is a prqceeding in rem against the vessel. The Old Colony Steam-boat Company is simply a claimant in this proceeding, entitled to defend the vessel, because of the fact that the ves- sel when seized was owned by that corporation, but not liable to a Personal judgment, unless upon a stipulation for value standing in place of the vessel, if such a stipulation has been given, of which the pleadings convey no information. The proceeding in the state court was also a proceeding in rem. When a defendant is not served with process, the proceeding by garnishment "is to be treated to ail intenta and purposes as a mere proceeding in rem." Story, Conflict of Laws, § 549; Drake on Attachments, § 474. The validity of the judgment rendered by the state court depends, therefore, upon the question whether that court acquired jurisdiction over the thing proceeded against, namely, the libellant's wages. That question is open to be passed on by this court, because it pertains to the jurisdiction, (Thompson v. Wkitman, 18 WalL 45;7,) and it is disposed of by the conclusion already arrived at, that the garnishment of seamen's wages isforbid- den by the law. In Hastings v. Farmer the validity of a judgment against an Indian was considered by the court of appeals of this state, and the court say : "Farmer was served, but the service was prohibited by law, and therefore illegal and void. It was no service, and the justice hadno jurisdic- tion." In Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583, a decree against a vessel seized by the marshal, but found by the supreme court of the United States to be exempt from seizure, was by that court held void. �Moreover, the answer under consideration does not state that the Old Colony Steam-boat Company has paid the libel- lant's wages to Eddy, the attaching creditor ; on the contrary, the judgment of the state court has been appealed from. Non constat that the wages will ever be paid to Eddy. "Where it does not appear that execution has been awarded ����
