266 7£D£BAIi JSBPOfiiSSi �Andeeson V. Shaffee,* (Uircuit Court, 8. D. Ohio, E. D. December, 1881.) �1. Attachmbnts — Skciion 915, Rbv. 8t.— Constkuctivb Service. �Under section 915, Rov. 8t., in actions for the recovery of money only, the United States courts are authorized to issue attacliment and garnisliee process only where the court has acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. As to what effect the adoption by the court, by general rules, of the attachment laws of the state in which it is held would have, where such lawa authorized constructive service in such cases, quœre. �2. Same— Sections 739, 915, Bev. 8t. — Case Stated. �In an action for the recovery of money only, on a promissory note, com- menced in the southern district of Ohio, by a resident of that state, against a resident of the state of Texas, the defendant not having been f ound and served within the district, but the petition alleged that the defendant had property and credits within the districts, and attachment and garnishments were issued therein, hdd, (1) that under section 739, liev. St., the action could not be maintained in that district ; and (2) that under section 915 the court had no power to issue attachments or garnish ois. �Motion to Dismiss Attachment. �Hairison, Olds de Marsh, for deie luant. �F. W. Wood, for plaintiff. �Swing, D, J. The record shows that on the sixteenth day of July, 1881, the plaintiff filed his petition in this court allegingthat hewas a citizen of the United States, and of the eastern division of the southern district of Ohio; that the defendant, on the fifteenth day of Octoher, 1877, at Kansas City, in the state of Missouri, made his promissory note, and delivered the same to Susan B. Wagenhols, and thereby promised to pay said Susan B. Wagenhols, or order, $2,000, with interest from date at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum ; that afterwards, and before the maturity of the note, the said Susan E. Wagenhols, for a valuahle consideration, indorsed the same, and transferred it to the plaintiff, who is now the legal holder and owner thereof, and sets ont a copy of the note, with the indorsements thereon; that the note is now due and unpaid; that said defendant has property and rights in action in the eastern division of the south- ern district of Ohio which the plaintiff aeeks to seize by attachment, and subject to the payment of his daim ; and plaintiff asks judgment on said note against the defendant for $2,000 and interest. �On the sixteenth day of July, 1881, a summons was issued upon the petition, directed to the marshal, commanding him "to summon �*RepoTted by J. C. Harper, Esq., of the Cincinnati bar. ��� �
