146 FEDERAL REPOSTBK. �ority of the United States is only a "priority of payment, but not of posses- sion." It is in the nature of a lien or mortgage for tlae payment of the duties. Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. 1 Pet. 441 ; Tracy v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 95; U. S. V. Lyman,! Mason, 499; Hoioland v. Harris, 4 MaSon, 497. The custody of the collecter is superseded and discharged when the property is seized under legal process. U. S. v. Case of &ilk, 13 Int. Rev. Bec. 58. The case of Barris v. Dennie^ 3 Pet. 292, relied on by the collecter, has been over- ruled in Conard y. Padflo Ins. Co. 6 Pet. 271. The property being in the custody of the court it had power te make the order asked for. Buch v. Col- hath, 3 Wall. 341. The duties having been tendered to the cellector he has no longer any right to interfere. �John K. Valentine, U. S. Dist. Atty., for the collector. �This proceeding being against an offlcer acting under a revenue law, on account of a right claimed by hini, is within section 643, Rev. St. A foreign attachment is a suit within the statute. Taylor v. Carryl, 20 Hew. 597 ; Weston V. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 464. In this case an attempt is madeto compelthe collecter toaccept the duties — an act which he couldnot be compelled to do by mandamus. Kendall v. U. 8. 12' Pet. 526 ; McChmg v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598; 8ame v. &ame, 2 Wheat. 3e9; Mcintire y. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504 ; Marhury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137. Attachments issued eut of a state court do net affect the rights of the United States to hold the mer- chandise until the payment of duties. Earris v. Dennie, 3 Pet. 292. This case was not overruled by Conard v. Pacific Ins. Co. 6 Pet. 262. Judge Story delivered the opinion of the supreme court in both cases, and in the latter case Judge Baldwin, in the court below, expressly distinguished them. The doctrine of Harris v. Dennie was reafflrmed in Tayior V, Cari-yl, 20 Hew. 594. See, also, U. S. v. Lyman, 1 Mason, 482 �The court filed a decree refusing the motion to remand, and setting aside the service of the writ as to John F. Hartranft, the collector. No opinion was iiled. ���. In re Yodng. �[Circuit Court, S. D. Illinois. November 3, 1881.) �1. Bankrdptcy — Application for a Dischargb — When Seasonable. �The application of a bankrupt for a discharge is seasonable if ruade before the final disposition of the case. �2. Case Siatbd. �Order denying a bankrupt hia discharge for want of timely application reversed, where the application was made before a final order closing the case, though af ter an order permitting a crediter to mbve for a final order. �James Goleman, for bankrupt. John W, Eanstead, contra. ��� �
