Mathews v. Densmore
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Ingham. Replevin. Defendant brings error. An officer acting under process from a State court cannot interfere with the possession of goods acquired by a United States Marshal by virtue of the process of a Federal court, Buck v. Goliath 3 Wall. 334; Freeman v. Howe 24 Iiow. 450; Chapin v. James 14 Am.
Read the full summary
Error to Ingham. Replevin. Defendant brings error. An officer acting under process from a State court cannot interfere with the possession of goods acquired by a United States Marshal by virtue of the process of a Federal court, Buck v. Goliath 3 Wall. 334; Freeman v. Howe 24 Iiow. 450; Chapin v. James 14 Am. L. Reg. 214, n.; on principles of comity, a State court will not in a collateral proceeding declare the process of the Federal court void in a pending suit regularly begun, Voorhees v. Bank of U. S. 10 Pet. 449. An officer is not protected by his writ, in a suit by third parties, if he…
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
Plaintiff in error is marshal of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, and as such levied an attachment issuing out of the United States Circuit Court for that District, upon a stock of goods in possession of the defendants in error. The plaintiffs in the attachment composed the firm of Simonds, Hatch & Whitten, and the defendants the firm of Gates & Marler. *462Before the attachment was served Densmore, .by virtue of one chattel mortgage given by Gates & Marler, and Elisha P. and DeWitt Grow, by virtue of another, had jointly taken possession of the stock of goods, and were…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Allyn v. MatherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
- Erskine v. HohnbachSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Earl v. Camp & StoneNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Watkins v. WallaceMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
- Parker v. WalrodCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Erstein v. RothschildU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1884
- Murphy v. MontandonIdaho Supreme Court · 1892
- I. Oberfelder & Co. v. KavanaughNebraska Supreme Court · 1887
- Jones v. McQueenUtah Supreme Court · 1896
- Howard v. ManderfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.