THE VALIDITY OF ATTACHMENTS. 2 T9 Van Buskirk was not a party to the action, but he might have made himself such. By the law of Illinois, unrecorded chattel mortgages were void against third persons. Van Buskirk subsequently brought an action in New York to recover the proceeds of the safes obtained by Green by means of his attachment in Illinois. The New York court rendered judgment in favor of Van Buskirk, and on writ of error the case was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the decision reversed on the ground that full faith and credit had not been given to judicial proceedings in Illinois. It seems impossible to distinguish the case of Lawrence v. Batcheller from Green v. Van Buskirk. It seems clear that the Supreme Court of the United States would have reversed the decision of the Massachusetts court had the latter decreed that the defendant should pay over the amount collected by him in other States, on the ground that such a decree amounted in effect to a reversal by the court of one State of the judgment of the court of another; and the decision should be rested solely on constitutional grounds. It has been decided in a recent case in the Supreme Court of the United States ' that it is not unconstitutional to enjoin prose- cuting an attachment suit in another State, as was done in Dehon v. Foster, though it was argued that in so enjoining an attachment the court was refusing to give credit to a lien granted by another State. This argument was met by the opinion of the majority of the court delivered by Chief Justice Fuller, thus: "The lien is inchoate and the property attached held to await the result of the suit. If a judgment for the plaintiff is obtained, the lien becomes perfected and the property is applied to satisfy the judgment. If plaintiff fails in his action the lien falls with it. And he may so fail by reason of the discharge of the defendant in insolvency, when he is a citizen of the same State, or has made himself a party to the proceedings in insolvency, or by the action of other courts of the State where the suit is pending, or elsewhere, if jurisdiction in personam be obtained." 2 Justice Miller, with whom concurred Justices Field and Harlan, wrote a vigorous dissenting opinion. Both opinions indicate that had the creditor collected his debt he could not have been deprived of his advantage. 1 Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107. 2 133 U. S. 107, 116.
