8TBAM STONE-CDTTEB 00; V. SEAES. 13 �la ws, which make specifie provision for that purpose in this state ; and il that mode was not adopted by the rules of the courts in equity, and the statutes of the United States in common-law cases, there -would be no way to levy executions issuing out of the United States courts upon lands within this state. Still, if this land had not been con- yeyed, and the record title had stood in the execution debtor, it prob- ably would not be contended but that upon a decree for the payment of money an execution could be taken out and satisfied by levy upon the land, as was done. �It was said in argument that such a rule could no more be made here than it could where attaohments upon mesne process are not known, which may be true, but the effect of it, and of all sueh rules, in either place is limited to the eontinuance of liens by decrees in the state courts, by the statute before mentioned. Eev. St.,§ 967. The efifect of the wbole is to keep the liens in proeeedings in the United States courts within the same bounds as in those of the state courts, according to the policy.of the laws of the United States, as stated by Mr. Justice Thompson in Bank of United States y. Hahtead, as before quoted. These proeeedings are according to the principles, praclice, and usages of courts of equity as they obtain within the state, and as the same have been recognized by this court by grant- ing such writs for many years, some of which have^een served in the same manner as this. That praotice is entitled to great weight on account of the learning and charaoter of the judges adopting it, and on account of its effect in showing the cases to which the rules were understood to apply. Chief Justice Marshall, in speaking of the legality of an arrest by the marshal in Connecticut, and commit- ment to jail without a mittimus, as required by the laws of the state, said : "The uniform course of that court from its first establishment, dispensing with this mittimus, may be considered as the alteration in this particular which the court was anthorized by law to make." Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1. These authorities and consider- ations lead to the conclusion that this lien was valid, and that the levy transferred the title to this land to the orator. This conclusion is reached with less reluetance because the defendant knew of this attachment, and purehased at a time when, so far as appears, all supposed it to be valid, and when he could protect himself against it by any provision he might require. The doubts which afterwards arose were shared in by the court, and the issuing sueh writs bas since been avoided where the service of them might expose the mar- shal to suit for taking property, or the refusai by him to take property ��� �
