Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/228

 216 ÏEDËIUIa auroBXSB, �TWO HUNDRED AND FiFTY TONS OF SaLT LaDBN ON BoABD THE SOHOONEB BaBBARA F. LaTIMER. �{District Court, 8. B. Nm York. December, 18S0.) �1. Peacticb— ATTACHiNa GtooDs m Possession of Collector of Cus- TOMS— Admibaltt Jueisdiction~Rkv. St. 2981— Sale on Vend. Ex. �SUBJECT TO DUTIES. �"Where a libel in rem to recover freight was flled against a cargo of sait which the consignee had refused to accept, and the collector of customs had taken it into his custody to secure payaient of duties, and while in his possession the monition was served on Mm by the mar- shal hy exhibiting to him the original process, leaving with him a copy and delivering a notice of attachment to the keeper of the United States public store where part of the sait was and whither the rest was in course of removal from the vessel, and the marshal made return of the monition that he " was unable to take said property into his custody otherwise than as aforesaid for the reason of the custody of said collector," and an interlocutory decree on default having been entered, and the amount of the libellant's claim and lien for freight ascertained, the libellant applied for a final decree and order that a wrlt vend. ex. issue for the sale of the sait, subject to the payment of the duties and expenses due the United States. �Mdd, ex parte, that the court acquired jurisdiction over the property by the service of the process as made, and could order the goods sold, subject to the claims of the United States for duties and expenses. �Taylor v. Varryl, 20 How. 583, and Hmri) v.Dennie,3 Pet. 292, re- ferred to. �In Admiralty. �W. R. Bebee, for libellant. �Choatb, D. J. This is a libel in rem for freight against the cargo which the consignee bas refused to accept. The mar- shal, in attempting to serve the process, found the cargo partly on the vessel and partly in the United States public stores, whither it was in course of removal by the collector of the port, who had taken possession of it for the enforcement of the rights of the United States to the duties upon its impor- tation. The process was served by a notice of the attach- ment delivered to the storekeeper, and by exhibiting to the collector the original process and leaving with him a copy of it. The marshal, in making return of this service, adds that he "was unable to take said property into his custody oth- ����