Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/610

 596 FEDERAL JRBPORTBB. �leasehold, eve'n whare it is taken as a chattel tnterest in real asiate, ihe sheriff cannot oust the tenant in possession or the execution debtor without his consent, and that he cannot, in the nature of the thing, be required to exercise any dominion or control over it, founded on any idea of a right to the pos- session. He should, no doubt, proclaim his levy to those in charge, and notify the tenants of it ; but, strictly speaking, I do not find that even that is neeessary to maintain his levy. That which the marshal did in this case was abundantly suf- ficient. He had no right to put a watchman on the premises, nor to remain on them himself without the consent of Daniel ; and, his presence not being neeessary to symbolize his title under the levy, his withdrawal was no abandonment, neither was he required to watch arid warn off trespassers, whether they came as officers with writs or otherwise. �In Very -v. Watkins, 23 How. 469, 474, it was said, even of a box of jewelry, that if the officer had a view of it, and it is in his power, he need not take actual possession, but may declare his levy without actual seizure. If any one disputes his title he ma^ retake the property wherever he finds it. Parrish v. Danford, 1 Borid, 345. On the theory, then, that the marshal was required toi levy on the leasehold as goods or chattels, bis levy was complete and his title good, and he could at any time bave xnade an actual seizure, if it became neeessary. It was in his constructive possession, and that , was enough. The sheriff; .on that theory, was a trespasser. Owing to comity between the courts the marshal would, per- haps, not be àble to turn him out without an application to the state court itself, but the sheriff's wrongful possession did not displace the marshal's levy. His levy was notorious and sufScieut, and the nature of the property was such that he could not and need not take any kind of actual possession. Neither the withdrawal of the watchman nor the entry of the sheriff can, therefore, be treated as an abandonment by the marshal of his title. The fallacy of the plaintiff's position is in supposing that to make or hold a valid levy the marshal should place a watchman in charge, or do some such signifi- cant act to manifest and keep up a manifestation of hia ����