32 rnnumn amronrnn.
jeoparded by the substitution of any other route. Besides this, as
already stated, the defendant was fully justified in believing that the
merchandise would be accepted and carried within a reasonable time
by the stean1—ship company, and would reach its destination more ex-
peditiously by this route than any other. But for unforeseen cir·
cumstances, which could not be anticipated, this expectation would
have been realized. Furthermore, it can hardly be said that there
was any other practically available route. The defendant was not,
therefore, in fault.
It must not be overlooked that the question here is not (as in Rail·
road Co. v. Manufg Ce. 16 Wall. 318) whether the defendant re·
mained liable under his obligations as carrier to the date of loss, but
whether he was guilty of wilhhtl fault, and consequently forfeited the
exemptions in the bill of lading, and thus became responsible for the
consequences of the fire. That he was not guilty of such fault seems
reasonably clear.
Judgment must therefore be entered for the defendant.
McKr.nNAN, J., concurring.
V , Bnoxnrr and another v. Snsarrr Hutroan Co.
(Uircuit Uaurt, D. Maryland. July 19, 1884.)
1. JURIBDICTION—STATE Comvr-—Fer>mn.u. Coeur-Cor:1¤Lror—An1znsror·Umcrmn
t Burns Mansnhn mr Burn Coeur Paocnss.
A state court has no jurisdiction to interfere with a marshal of the United
States in his execution of the process of a United States court.
2. SAME-Paornn Counsm ro nm Punsunn.
If, under a writ of replevin, the marshal, by virtue of the writ, seizes prop-
' ertv supposed to be that of the defendant, which, in reality, is the property of
another, it is not within the jurisdiction of the state court to arrest him for ex-
ecuting the process of the United States court, but the real owner must come
into the United States court and by an ancillary process have his claim to the
property determined against the plaintiff in the suit. in whose behalf the pro-
cess of the court has been awarded.
3. SAMs—CoUm· on ·r1m Rmmnr.
The parties are to seek their remedy in the court whose oiiicer is alleged to
have offended, but he cannot he arrested by any other court of concurrent ju·
risdiction.
4. SAME—SEIZURE or- Pnornnrr HELD Unnmn Paoomss or- Brun Counr.
A court of the United States has not jurisdiction to take into its possession
* property which has been seized and taken into the possession of a state court
by any process of that court.
In the Matter of Habeas Corpus.
Blackiston at Blackiston, for petitioners.
_ Henry W. Archer and Archibald Stirling, Jr., for the sheriff ol
Harford county.