notes, and oases; because, while there may be said to be two funds, there are two liens claimed on each fund. On the crop fund there isFirst, the laborer's lien; and, second, the factor's lien. On the plantation fund, to the extent of the mules, etc., there is claimed-First, the laborer's lien; and, second, the mortgage lien. Rogers says "the laborers have two securities, while I have only one;" and the intervenors, while they are hampered with the fact that they hold both the laborer's and tbe factor's lien, make practically the same claim. It rather seems to be a case for the application of the maxim, qzti prior est tempore, potiar est jure. See Broom. Leg. Max. 263. (5) The fund in court has been brought in by the complainant Rogers to satisfy bis acknowledged prior-in time-mortgage, and the intervenorfl show no superior right or equity; and there is no basis in the case to render any decree, recognizing a concurrent equity. (6) For all the forugoing reasons, I am satisfied that the equity of the case is with complainant, Rogers.
LAFOLLYE and others v, CARRIERE and others. 1
(Circuit COU1't, E. D. Louisiana. March, 1885.)
933, REV. ST. Onder section 933, Rev. St., writs of attachment issued from the federal courts are dissolved, in conformity with state laws, Lv a surrender of property under the insolvent laws of the state.
By the law of the state of Louisiana, as construed by its supreme court, a cession of property made by insolvents dissolves all writs of attachment which have not matured into judgment prior to the cessiC'n; and under section 933. Rev. St., the rule must be the same in the federal courts.
SAME-INSOLVENT LAWS OF LOUISIANA.
The plaintiffs in these suits applied for and obtained writs of attachment against the defendants, A. Carriere & Sons, and under these writs seizure was made of various notes, bonds, and other securities. Subsequently, on the eighteenth of July, 1884, the defendants, A. Carriere & Sons, through E. L. Carriere and C. J. Carriere, surviving partners, made a cession of all their property to their creditors under the insolvent laws of the state of Louisiana. James M. Seixas was elected syndic of the creditors, and he appeared in court and through his counsel moved for the dissolution of the writs of attachment, on the ground that as the effect of the cession of the property of the insolvents was to dissolve all writs of attachment
by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.
LAFOLLYE V. CARRIERE.
against said property in the state cou:-t, a result must follow in the federal court, under the operatIOn of sectIOn 933, Rev. St. In order to give to the parties a full hearing on these questions, and to establish uniform rules of pr:tctice in the district with reference to this matter of the maintenance or dissolution of such attachments, the circuit judge, Hon. DON A. PARDEE, and district judge, Bon. E. C. BILLINGS, sat together. Charles Louque and Henry Denis, for att!\,ching creditors. R. H. Browne, for defendants. Thos. L. Bayne, for the syndic of the creditors. E. D. White, for executor of A. Carriere. PARDEE, J. The partnership of A. Carriere & Sons, after :May 31, 1884, was a partnership at will. It was dissolved by the death of A. Carriere on June 4, 1884. On the dissolution the partnership property either went into the hands of the surviving partners, or in the hands of the probate court having jurisdiction of A. Carriere's succession, depending on the nature of the proceedings had after the dissolution. So far as the plaintiffs here are concerned, on proper grounds shown, they could have an attachment for their claims against the firm of Carriere & Sons to run against the property of the surviving partners, and the property of the firm in their possession. The cession shown in the case is made by E. L. Carriere and C. J. Carriere, individually and as surviving partners, and by operation of law carries into the surrender all their individual property, and all the property of the firm. The effect of such ceSSIOn and proceedings thereon was to stay and practically dissolve all attachments then issued against the said surrendering partners, and all property surrendered; in the state court, by the direct operation of state laws, and in the national courts by force of section 933, Rev. St. The insolvency laws of Louisiana are not unconstitutional by reason oftheir having been re.enacted by codification in 1869, while the ba,nkruptcy laws of the United States were in force. The creditor not placed on the bilan of a ceding debtor is not bound by the proceedings in insolvency until he shall be made a. party to the cession; but in case of attachment previously issued by a creditor not placed on the bilan, the creditor is considered as being made a party by a motion made to dissolve the attachment on the ground of the cession properly pleaded, or by other proper proceedings, whether by answeI' or intervention, properly pleading the cession. The effect of these views in the present cases results in giVIng judgment to plaintiffs for amounts of debt against E. L. and C. J. Carriere, individually and as surviving partners, in all cases; and in such cases as the executor of A. Carriere is sued, against him also,-the same to be satisfied in due course of administration; and that all attachments be dissolved. As in our view the attachments were rightfully issued, and are dissolved by reason of subsequent events not imputable to
plaintiffs, all costs of attachment should be paid by the syndic intervening, before the property attached is surrendered. BILLINGS, J., concurred.
ADAMS and others.
(Circuit Court. lJ. Oreaon. Julv 27.
LIABILITY OF A SURETY.
The hability of a surety in an official bond is strir-ti juris; and he is not to be held responsible for the conduct of his principal beyond the scope of his undertaking, reasonably construed.
ASSISTANT SECItETARY OF THE 'fREASURy-AUTHORITY OF.
The assistant secretary of the treasury is not the deputy of the secretary, but only his aid; and his acts are not valid unless specially authorized hy law or prescribed by the secretary, (sections 161,245, Hev. St.;) but It letter written by him to a collector of customs, concerning the deposit of money in his custody, will be presumed to have been writ-tim hv 1l.1l1hm·it.v of the secreta!'\' until the contraryappears.
CA8E IN JUDGMEN'r.
In 1866 A. was collector of customs at Astoria, Oreg-on, when and where he received a letter, signed by the assistant secretary of the treasury, directing him to take $46,500 in gold coin, theretofore received by him in payment of duties, and then in his custody, to San Francisco, and deposit the same with the assistant treasurer; in pnrsuance of which direction the collector sailed for San Francisco on the eurrent steamer with said money in his trunk, and on the way $20,500 of the same was stolen therefrom, without any want of ordinary care and dilig<:>nce on his part, a portion of which was ,afterwards recovered, so as to reduce the loss to $12,696.28, for whieh the government sued the eollector and his sureties on their bund. The defendants pleaded these facts in defense and claimed they were not liahle on the bond, to which the plaintiff demurrea. Held, (I) that t.he carriage of this money to San .l<'rancisco was no part of the duty of A. as collector, (sectiun 3639, Hev. St.,) and therefore his ;mreties are not responsible for IllS conduct while so engaged; and (2) that in the transportation of said money, A. was simply acting as private earrier for the governmen t, and is not liable on his bond for his conduct, or otherwise, except fur the want of ordinary care and diligence.
Action on the Bond of Collector of Customs. James F. Watson, for the United States. James K. Kelly, for defendant Adams·. George H. Williams, for defendants Parker and Gillette. DEADY, J. This action is brought by the United States to recover of the defendants the sum of $12,696.28, with interest, at 6 per centum per annum, from September 18, 1873. The complaint alleges that in 1865 the defendant William L. Adams was appointed col· lector of customs for the district of Oregon, and that on September 15 of said year he, together with the defendants Charles L. Parker and PreFlton W. Gillette, as his sureties, executed their bond to the plaintiff in the penal sum of $50,000, conditioned as follows: "That the said Adams has truly and faithfully executed and discharged, and