STEAM STONE-CDTTEB 00. ». WINDSOB MANDP'<J 00. 801 �•was not disobeyed nor disturbed. It is a criminal offence to resist an officer, but taking property on which be bas a mere constructive lien is not understood to constitute sucb an offence. He not only bad not excluded the parties from pos- session, but must bave understood and expected that tbej, and not be, were to bave the actual possession of the prop- erty. The express order of the court run to the marsbal and not to the parties. He was commanded to take, attacb, and sequester, but tbey were not restrained furtber tban the actual execution by bim of bis order vrould restrain tbem. Tbat would carry an order to tbem not to interfere with bim so far as be went, but would carry no furtber order tban tbat. �Tbis proceeding is criminal in its nature, and answering the question wbetber there is a valid lien or not would not flbow wbether tbese respondents are liable in tbis proceeding. Tbey must not only bave violated a right, but so bave done it as to constitute a contempt, in order to be bolden. �Tbe power of the federal courts to punish for contempt is fiomewbat restricted by section 725, Eev. St., wbicb providea tbat the power of the courts to punisb contempts "sball not be construed to extend to any cases, except the misbebavior of any person in tbeir presence, or so near tbereto as to ob- struct the administration of justice, the misbebavior of any of the officers of said courts in tbeir official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any sucb officer, or by any party, juror, witness, or otber person, to any lawful writ, pro- cess, order, rule, decree, or command of the said courts." �Here notbing bas been done in the presence of the court, or even of any of its officers; wbat bas been done can only be claimed to corne witbin that part of tbis provision relating to disobedience or resistance to a writ. The intention of the clause seems to be to prevent proceedings against persons in tbis Bummary way, in ail cases except where the course of judicial proceedings would be actually obstructed. Tbis is not sucb a case. If anytbing, a civil right only bas been in- vaded, and that right can be tried acoording to the usual course. It is doubtf ul wbether sucb a meddling with property only constructively attached would be sucb a contempt that ����
