Page:United States Reports, Volume 257.djvu/93

12 Rh  creditor remedies on common-law executions "similar" to those of the state court, an execution sale of personal property which under the state law (Miss. Code, 1871) must be made at the court house of the county may be made at the court house of the United States where the judgment was entered and execution issued. P. 22, Smith v. Cockrill, 6 Wall. 756, and Amy v. Watertown, 130 U. S. 301, distinguished.

to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi rendered in favor of the City of Clarksdale in a suit brought by the city to assert its ownership in shares of stock in a railway company. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. H. D. Minor, with whom Mr. Charles N. Burch and Mr. Blewett Lee were on the briefs, for plaintiffs in error and petitioners.

Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald, with whom ''Mr. Geo. F. Maynard and Mr. W. W. Venable'' were on the briefs, for defendant in error and respondent.

 The writ of error should be dismissed. Jud. Code, § 237, as amended. The federal question presented was not of sufficient importance to warrant certiorari.

The Act of 1893, 27 Stat. 751, has no application to a sale of property under execution in common-law cases. Under §§ 914, 916, Rev. Stats., the only way to enforce one's judgment in the federal court is to proceed according to state practice. Chamberlain v. Mensing, 47 Fed. 435; Ex parte Boyd, 105 U. S. 647; Perez v. Fernandez, 202 U. S. 80; Amy v. Watertown, 130 U. S. 301. Section 914 contains the significant words not contained in the former acts,—"any rule of court to the contrary notwithstanding." See Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430. The state rules can be varied only where necessary to enable federal officers to function under them. 