Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/654

 PBATT V. ALBBIGHT. 639 �The attention of the court has been called to the case of Tunstall V. Worthington, Hempst. 662, wherein it -vras held that proceedings against a garnishee, after execution, was so far a civil suit that the federal court had not jurisdiction thereof, if the parties thereto were citizens of the same state, although the judgment upon which the execution was issued was recovered in that court. The soundness of this decision may well be doubted, in the light of later authorities ; for it is fully settled that even a creditpi's' bill, to enforce payment of a judgment recovered in the federal court, is but a continuation of the original suit at law, and may be prosecuted in that court with- out regard to the'citizenship of the parties. �Keithr. Levi, 1 McCrary, 343, [S. C. 2 Fed. Eep. 743,] was cited on the argument as an authority to the effect that a controversy between citizens of different states, as to the validity of an attaeh- ment, constituted a removable case within the meaning of section 639 of: the Revised Statutes. But the question of the validity of the attachment in that case arose upon: a plea in abatement to the peti- tion in the principal suit, which alleged that the defendant was about to fyaudulently dispose of his property, and hence was one of the issues in the main case. The .authority is therefore not applicable. Nor do I think that Watson v. Bondurant, 2 Woods, 166, which was also cited, has any application to the question here presented for adjudication. �On the whole, my opinion is that the proceeding against the gar- nishee, which it is sought to bring within the jurisdiction of this court by removal after judgment in the original action, is, in the language of the court in Bank v. Twnhull, supra, merely auxiliary to that action, a graft upon it, and not such an independent, separate suit as may be removed to this court under the removal act of 1875. Motion to remand granted. ��� �