mims v. NORTON. D
3. Pnoonss mon Ummn Burns Comvrs. `
A part of the defense of the marshal is in justifying under process from the A
United States circuit court. The validity, force, and effect of such process must _
be settled by the laws of the United States in reference thereto.
Homer v. Clayton, 8 Woods 273, followed. A
On Motion to Remand to State Court.
The suit is one brought by the plaintiff, in the district court of
Fannin county, against the defendant, as marshal of the northern
district of Texas, for trespass in seizing (under certain write of
attachment issued from the United States circuit court of said diss
trict against one A. P. Ryan) a lot of goods belonging to plaintiff. The
petition sets forth the alleged wrongful acts of the marshal in detail,
specihcally alleging that the actual wrongs were committed by one
Clark, who was, and was acting as, a deputy of said Norton, mar-
shal. The answer of the defendant alleges justiheation under the
said writ of attachment, and that the property seized actually be·
longed to and was the property of Ryan, the defendant in attachment.
The petition for removal recites that the defendant, in doing the acts
complained of, was acting as marshal of the northern district of
Texas, under certain write of attachment issued out of the United
States circuit court for said district. r
W. Bl Wright, for plaintiff.
Crawford at Smith, for defendant.
Psannn, J. The question presented by the motion to remand is
whether the case arises under the laws of the United States. If it i
does so arise, then the cause was properly removed to this court.
"Cases arising under the laws of the United States are such as grow
out of the legislation of congress, whether they constitute the right
or- privilege or claim or protection or defense of the party in whole
or in part by whom they are asserted." A part of the plaintiffs case,
in this action is to make Norton, marshal, liable for the acts of his V
deputy, Clark. If Norton is liable, such liability arises under the
laws of the United States and must be tested by such laws. In part, A
the defense of Norton, marshal, for the alleged trespass, is in justin-
_ cation under process from the United States circuit court. The
validity, force, and effect of such process must be settled by the laws
of the United States in reference thereto. So that it appears that ‘
the case for each party to this action is one that, under the rule
aforesaid, arises under the laws of the United States.
It is not disputed by counsel, and seems to be settled by the su-
preme court of the United States, that cases of trespass against