TiaCBES V. JDAUDIBCAIi. 145 �Fischer v. Daudistal.* (Circuit Court, B. D. Penmylvania. April 16, 1881.) �1, PoBBiGif Attachmbnt— CoiLBCTOE op CusTOMS— GooDS Hbld for Duties. �A United States collecter of customs cannot, in a foreign attachaient pro- ceeding in a state court, be made gamishee with respect to goods of the defendant held for duties ; and if he is served with a writ of attachment in such proceeding the service will be set aside. �2. Removal of Causes — Collbctok op Customs Sbhvbd with ATTACHiCEUT. �The collector may, if served with such attachment, remove the suit to the United States circuit court, under section 643 of the Revised Statutes. �Motion to remand case to state court, and motion to quash writ of foreign attachment : �This was a suit of foreign attachment brought in a state couii; by Frederick Fischer against PhUip Daudistal. By an indorsement on the writ the sheriff was directed to attach the goods and chattels of defendant in the possession of the Eed Star Line, (Peter "Wright & Sons, agents,) the Pennsyl vania Kailroad Company, and John P. Hartranft, collector of the port of Philadelphia. The sheriff returned that he had attached as commaiided and summoned as gar- nishees the Ked Star Line, the Pennsylvania Bailroad Company, and John F. Hartranft, collector of the port of Philadelphia. Subsequently, in the same suit, the plaintifE flled a petition setting forth that under the writ of foreign attachment the sherlii had seized, on the wharf of the Eed Star Line, 14 easks of wine imported from Europe by, and consigned to, the defendant, subject to claims for duties payable to the United States ; that the customs offlcers had taken possession of the wine and stored it in the bonded warehouse; that plaintiff, as attaching crediter, had tendered to John F. Hartranft, collector of the port of Philadelphia, the duties payable on said wine, and had requested him to receive the same and deliver up the goods to the sheriff, but that he refused so to do. Plaintiff prayed for a rule on the collector to show cause why he should not receive the duties and surrender the goods into the custody of the court. A rule having been granted in aecordance with this prayer, John F. Hartranft, the collector, obtained a oertiorari from the United States circuit court to remove the record to that court. The record was duly certi- iied, whereupon plaintiff moved to remand, and the collector moved to quash the writ of attachment as to him. �These motions were argued before MoKbnnan, C. J., and Butleb, D. J. �Levnn W. Barringer, for plaintiff. �This suit is not brought against the collector, and he is not a party defend- ant. As garnishee he is only collaterally interested, and cannot remove the suit. Part of a controversy only cannot be removed. Hervey v. Railroad Co. 7 Biss. 103. The title to the property was in the consignee, and the pri- �*Reported by Frank P. Prichaid, i^q., oi ttui fUladelpUia bar. �v.9,no.3— 10 ��� �
