Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/475

 BBENNAN V. BÏEkir-TÙO ANKa F. SOBB. e6l �triet court fot the northem district of New York, now beforô me, shows that at the hearing of that motion a copy of the record of this court in this ôafle Msproduced, and affidavits on both sides submitted, showing that the tug had not been seized by the marshal of the western district of Pennsylvania, but was left in the possession of Christian, and the circumstances under which she was taken ont of the harbor of Erie. On April 15, 1878, the court denied the motion of Christian, and Bubsequently the marshal of the ndrthern district of New York, under his writ of venditioni exponas, sold the tug to L. B. Fortier for $3,250. �The purchase money havingbeen paid to the marshal, and by him paid into court, Christian & Carse, by Sprague, Gor- ham & Bacon, professing to act as their proctors, petitioned the court for an order distributing the funda ; and, such order having been made, the above-named proctors. On July 1 6^ 1878, reeeived and receipted for the shares of Christian & Carse, in their name and behalf. �Il is, however, alleged, by Christian à Carse, that this action on the part of Sprague, G^rhàm & Bacon was wholly unau- thoi-ized aud never ratified by them; and they further allege that L; B. Fortier acted and conspired with Brennan in seiz- ing and taking the tug from Erie tô- Buffalb, in contempt (as they suppose) of the process of this' court. Whether or not these allegations are true, it is not necessary to consider in disposing of the present motion. �The United States district court for the northem district of New York having passed upon the question of jurisdiction, and its final decree standing unreversed and unappealed from, that decree would be recognized and acquiesced in by thia court, even were I of opinion that its decision upon the ques- tion of jurisdiction was erroneous. But I do not entertain such opinion. �In Miller v. United States, H Wall. 294, it is said : "In rev- enue and admiralty cases a seizure is undoubtedly necessary to confer upon the court jurisdiction over the thing when the proceeding is in rem. In most of such cases the res is ����