ADLEE V. ROTH. 895 �for negligence he must not only show the negligence, but must also show that damage resulted to him from such neg- ligence; and taking this petition in ail its parts it does not show that the loss of the debt of the plaintiff was the resnlt of the negligence of the defendant. To do this it must be shown that if the case had been properly taken to the supreme court, that that court would bave reversed the decis- ion of th« district court, and this does not appear either from the allegations of the petition, or, as a conclusion of law, from the facts therein stated. �The demurrer must therefore be sustained. ���Adleb, Goldman & Co. v. Eoth, Defendant, and SHAPiiBiaB «& Co., Intervenors. �{Oireuit Court, E. D. ArJcansas. , 1881.) �1. Attachment — Levy— Personal Propertt. �To constitute and preserve an attachment of personal property ca- pable of manual delivery, the offlcer must take the property into cus- tody and continue in the actual possession of it, by bimself , or by an agent appointed by him for that purpose. �2. Bamb— Two Wbits— Priokitt, �Where writs of attachment issue from a federal and state court agatnst the same defendant, the ohe uuder vrhich the property is flrst actually taken into custody has priority, without regard to the date of the respective writs, and a United States marshal and sherifE can- not make a joint or partnership levy, nor can one of these officeis make a levy subject to the prior levy of the other. �Cdldwell Bradshaw, for intervenors. �Cohn e Cohn and Eben W. KimbaU, for Adler, Goldman & Co. �N. e J. Erb, for E. Eoth. �Caldwelij, D. j. On the twenty-sixth of November, 1880, A.dler, Goldman & Co. sued out of this court a writ of attach- ment against the property of E. Eoth, and placed the same in the marshal's hands for service. On the same day Shapleigh & Co. sued out a like writ against the same defendant, before a justice of the peace, and placed it in the hands of a deputy sheriff for service. The plaintiff s in the last writ petition for ����
