Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/229

 250 TONS SALT ON BD. SCHOONBB BARBABA P. LATIMEB. 217 �erwise than as aforesaid, for the reason of the cuetody of Baid collecter." An interlocutory decree having been entered by default, and the amount of the libellant's claim and lien for freight having been ascertained, the libellant now applies for a final decree and an order that a writ of vend. ex. issue for the sale of the sait, subject to the payment of duties and expenses due to the United States. Upon the suggestion of the marshal, who questions the jurisdiction of the court over the goods tinder the service of the process made, and which was the only service practicable, I have examined the question involved, though without that aid which the court receives in a contested case. It is suggested that there has been no such seizure of the res as is essential to give th» admiralty court jurisdiction. It is also suggested that the possession of the collector is so far absolute as to exclude any possession or control over the goods by the marshal under his process. It is not, however, universally true that the jurisdic- tion of a coui-t of admiralty depends upon a seizure of prop- erty in the sense of its actual manucaption by the officer of the court, although the mode of seizure of chattels is usuaUy in that form. Jurisdiction is acquired, however, over things not capable of actual manucaption, as debts and credits, by the process of foreign attachment; and under a statute authorizing the seizure and confiscation of enemies* property, including corporate stocks, but prescribing no mode of seizure, while it was held that there must be a seizure to give the court jurisdiction over the property, yet it might be such as the nature and situation of the property admitted of, and that service of the monition on an ofiieer of the corporation, with notice of the seizure, was a sufficient seizure to uphold the jurisdiction, Miller v. U. S. 11 Wall. 298. Williams & Bruce, in their work on the Jurisdiction and Practice of the High Court of Admiralty, 193, say: "The cargo maybe proceeded against in respect of any liability attaching to it, etc. If the cargo be on board the ship, and is proceeded against speoif- ically and named in the warrant, or if it is not named in the warrant, but is proceeded against in respect of freight due for the transportation thereof, the arrest of tHfe ship arresta the ����