Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/845

M'CAKTY V. STBAM-PROPELLBB OITY OF NEW BEDFOBD. 831 �convenience and manifcst incongruity attending the applica- tion of the law of garnishment are reasons for exempting any demanda from garnishment, those reasons are as weighty in % case of this as of any other character. Says the court in Russie y. G. L. U. Congregation, 35 Cal. 378 : "If we admit that the equitable rights of the defendant can be reached in that way, we must go to the length of holding that our jus- tice's courts can take cognizance of them, and must be called upon to ascertain and condemn them to the use of the plain- tiflF, however difQcult the undertaking may be, and however inadequate the powers of those courts." So here, if it be held that an assignment of the seaman's contract to his creditor can be effected by the process of garnishment, and the contract enforced for the creditor's benefit, by the second district court of the county of Bristol, we must go the length of holding that that court can scrutinize the contract and reforms its terms — can enforce the security attached to it, by process in rem against the ship — can settle the partner- ship account in regard to the freight. This seems to be the inevitable resuit of upholding the attachment, and it is con- clusive against the existence of a right to attach the wagea by process of a court of law. �Having thus endeavored to show that seamen's wages, whether eamed in the coastwise trade or otherwise, are not subject to garnishment at the instance of a creditor in an action at law, I proceed to consider the effect of the fact stated in the supplemental answer, namely, that in the suit brought by Eddy the state court arrived at the opposite con- clusion, and directed that the libellant's wages be applied to the payment of Eddy's demand. Accordingto the claimant's contention, that adjudication of the state court is binding upon this court, and is conclusive of the claimant's right to a dismissal of this libel, so far, at least, as concems the wages of the libellant Hare. But such is not my opinion. The adjudication of the state court in the suit of Eddy, although to be treated with ail respect, is without binding eiïect in the present proceeding, and does not relieve this vessel from lia- bility to the present proceeding. The libellant was no party ����