Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/909

. ADLBB V. EOTH. 897 �to the place where the property ■w'as and look npôn it by the light of a burning match, and then go away, leaVîng it in the open lot wherç he found it, and where it waa afterwards foMid and levied opon by the marshal. The Gode provides that the officer shall execute the order of attachaient "uponi personal property, capable of manual delivery, by taking it into his custody and holding it, subject to the order of the court. Upon other personal property by delivering a copy of the order, with a notice specifying the property attached to the person holding the same." Seotion 399, Gantt's Dig. �These provisions only formulate the previously well-settled rules of law on this subject. The "custody and holding" required in the case of property capable of manual delivery isactual and real, not ideal or coûstructive. �,The officer's indor sement on the writ that he has levied on the property and taken it into bis custody amounta to noth- ing if he has not in fact done so. He must obtain the power and control over it, and take it out of the power and control of the debtor. The objeot of a writ of attachment is to take the property out of the debtor's possession and transfer it into the custody of the law for the security of the plaintiff. Hollister v. Goodale, 8 Conn. 332. �The authorities are uniform that to conetitute and pre- serve an attachment of personal property, capable of manual delivery, the officer must take the property into custody, and continue in the actual possession of it by himself or an agent appointed by him for that purpose. If to do this it is neces- sary to remove the property, then it must be removed. Where the debtor is divested of his possession and control, and the officer or his agent is in the actual custody of the property, it may remain in the place where it is found. But if a removal is necessary in order to retain possession, it is the duty of the officer to remove it ; and the fact that the removal will be attended with some inconvenience does not furnish an excuse for a neglect to retain possession. Chadburne v. Sumner, 16 N. H. 129 ; Miller v. Camp, li Conn. 219; Gower v. Stevens, 19 Me. 92;, Lane v. Jackson, 5 Mass. 157; Gale v. Ward, 14 Mass. 356; Odiorne v. Colley, 2 N. H. 66; Huntingfon v. �v.5,no.l0— 57 ����