34 ·FEDEBAL nmronrnn.
canned tomatoes seized by virtue of the writ of replevin, and the
claimant appears for the specihc goods under a bill of sale from Oli-
ver dated January 24, 1884, which, being duly recorded, is now ad-
mitted to have- been really a mortgage, and not an absolute sale.
The grantor remained in. possession. The parties in the replevin
claimed under a warehouse receipt for the canned goods, and, upon
that warehouse receipt, claimed in replevin their right to possession.
Under a statute of Maryland the trustees in the trust deed asked the
` circuit. court of Harford county to assist them in the administration
of. the trust. The court passed no order in pursuance of this request.
The parties defendant therein had not been served with process. No
order to take possession of the canned tomatoes named in the writ of
replevinis shown, and not till after a large quantity of the goods had
been delivered to the plaintiffs in replevin, and all of them had been
seized under that writ, was the circuit court of Harford asked to en-
join the marshal from removing them in obedience to that writ. The
fact is, the property claimed in the replevin was in the custody of this
court, and not in that of the circuit court of Harford county, when
the injunction and writ of attachment issued, as appears from the evi-
dence in this court now offered. While I think it was not necessary,
yet I have thought proper to show, out of the respect which I enter-
tain for the learned court of Harford, that the marshal of the United ‘
States was not, in point of fact, taking possession of property in the
custody of that court, but only of property claimed by one under a
deed of trust, and by another under a bill of sale, now admitted to
be a mortgage, while the plaintiff in replevin claimed it under a ware-
house receipt. But even if the marshal had seized and replevied
goods in the custody of that court by virtue of a writ out of the cir-
cuit court of the United States, he was not liable to arrest and im-
prisonment for so doing. The parties had their remedy against his
own bond, or against the replevin bond, or by any proceeding they
chose to take in this court. That the state court did not take pos-
session of Oliver’s property by reason of the application of the trus-
tees in the deed of trust for assistance to administer it, I rely on
Lanahan v. Nat. Bank of New York, 60 Md. 477; and for the want
of jurisdiction to arrest or imprison the marshal for executing a writ
of this court by anyother court,I rely upon the case of Covell v.
Hayman, 111 U. S. 176, S. C. 4 Sup. Gt. Rep. 355, and the author-
ities therein cited. ,
ghe deputy marshals must be and are hereby discharged from cus-
to y.