THE OUVU A. OABBIGAII. 609 �of the seamen be satisfied out of the proceeds of the vessel and the freight, leaving the question of the proper marshal- ling of the assets as between the two funds to be determined when all the parties were properly before the court, and proof should have been taken under the several petitions filed or to be filed. Bertaux bas now corne in by petition, and by a supplemental petition it appears that he bas reeovered a judgment for $288.24. The amount of the freight moneys in the registry is $653 ; the proceeds of the vessel remaining in the registry, after satisfying the decree in favor of the seamen and all other decrees for maritime liens, is $597.18. The mortgage of the petitioner Dimock is dated April 26, 1880, and there is alleged to be due upon it $2,000. Ber- taux's attachment was made May 18, 1880. And now a motion is made to dismiss bis petition on the ground that be cannot have acquired any lien on the freight money by his attachment wbich this court can recognize, because the pre- vious attachment by the marsbal vritbdrew the debt entirely from the jurisdiction of the state court, and on the ground that his claim upon the freight money, if any, is not of a character to be enforced in this court against a surplus in the registry. The parties have also argued and submitted the question •whether the lien of the mortgage or that of the attaehing crediter, if they both have liens, should be held to give the better right to have the assets, the proceeds of the vessel and the freight moneys, marshalled for bis benefit. �The first question is whether the attachment of the debt by the marsbal so brought the sum due into the possession or coiQtrol of the officers of this court that the subsequent service of the garnishee process out of the state court must be considered wholly inoperative ; or, in other words, whether there can be two garnishments of the same fund or debt by courts of different jurisdictions, baving different executive officers, It is insisted that by the first attachment the fund is, in contemplation of law, so absolutely in the possession and under the control of the marshal that the sheriff cannot obtain any such possession or control as will sustain the sec- ��� �
