898 FEDERAL SEPOBTER. �Blairdeîl, Id. Sll ; Butterjield v. Clemence, 10 Cush. 269; Crawfor V. Newell, 23 lowa, 453. �The wagons and sait in question were capable of manual delivery. They were the property of the defendant in the writs, on; his premises, and in his possession. The deputy sheriff did nothing whatever to divest or change this posses- sion, or prevent the attachment of the property by any other officer. In the first instance the levy made by the marshal was ûo beiter than that made by the deputy sheriff, but after- wards, and'before the deputy sheriff had taken or attempted to take the aotual oustody of the property, the marshal per- feoted his levy by taking actiial possession, and now bas the property in his custody. It is needless to inquire whether the writ from this or the magistrate's court was first issued. The rule is well settled that ih case of such writs issuing from a federal and state court agaiust the same defendant, the writ under which the property is first actually taken into custody bas priority, without regard to the date of the respect- ive writs. The usual stattitory provision that an execution or writ of attachment shall be a lien upon or bind the prop- erty of the defendant in the writ from the time it comes to the hands of the officer, bas no operation in such cases. In the case at bar neither the marshal nor the deputy sheriff had the least priority of right.until one had acquired it by a prior valid levy. The possession under such a levy is notice of the attachment, and prevents a second attachment, and ail conflict of jurisdiction. Nor can the marshal of this court and a sheriff make a joint oï partnership levy on the same property, nor can one of these officers make a levy sub- ject to the prior levy of the other. They açt under author- ity of different governments, and each must make his return and account to the court of which he is an officer. Any effort to mingle their powers and authority would lead to confusion, and tend to bring about conflicts between thô courts of the two governments and their officers. To avoid these reaults the rule is inflexible that property cannot be the subject of levy under writs issuing from a federal and state court at the same time. The first actual seizure, ����
