Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/154

 142 FEDEBAIi EEPORTEB. �provisions of wMch the plaintiff claims to have acquired his title, requires, that the claim filed in the clerk's office of the county Bhall contain the name of the owner of the property at the time of filing, and that the summons issued to enforce the lien shall be against such ownerj as well as the builder; and that inasmuoh as the owner of the real estate in contro- versy is divestod of ail his interest therein, and the title to the same vests in the United States at the time of the com mission of the act or acts which cause the forfaiture, it does not seem unreasonable that ail subsequent proceedings by leinors to charge the property with the lien, should'be held inoperative and void against the United States, unless it were made a party to the proceedings as owner. �4. But, whether this be so or not, I am of the opinion that nnder the proceedings iw rem, to give effect to the forfeiture, ail persons claiming liens against the res were notifled to come in and establish their liens; that after seizure by the marshal the property was in the possession of the court for that purpose; that whilst, by such proceedings, the lien upon the res was divested by the sale, it attached at once to the fund in court which was realized by the sale; and that the claimants mistook their remedy by going into the state courts to enforce their liens, and should have applied to the district court, where the property was, to be allowed to participate in the proceeds of its sale to the extent of their claims ; and that, if their failure so to do has resulted in their loss, no blame can attaoh to the government, which afforded them ample opportunity for a judieial consideration of their claims. Whether the liene attached to the premises, notwithstanding the forfeiture, it is notnecessary here to decide. The ques- tion was raised and disoussed by Judge Dillon in the case of the U. S. v; Macoy, 2 Bill. 299, and left by him unadjudi- cated. �5. Entert-aining the foi^egoing view, I- am further of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this suit, and tbaf a judgment must be entered for the defendant, with costs. ■■■■ '■ ��� �