Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/53

BBIDOES V. 8HELD0N. 41 �orator. Eev. St. U. S. § 629. But, when brought, the relief to be obtained can be no greater than he -would be entitled to in a similar suit in the state court. Ewing v. St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413. In the state court, although the orator might pro- ceed to judgment or decree for the amount his due, there would be no enforcement of either while the trustee suits were pending. Morton v. Webb, 7 Vt. 123; Hicks v. Gleason, 20 Vt. 139; Jones v. Wood, 30 Vt. 268. �The orator could remove these attachments by satisfying the claims of the plaintiffs and procuring the suits to be dis- continued, or by substituting bonds for the attachments, without affecting the claims they were brought to secure, if he preferred that course. Laws of Vt. 1869, No. 42. The detention of this money from the orator, while he left it to be so held that he had no enforceable daim to it, cannot in any just sense be held to be wrongful. Perhaps they would have continued to hold it if the attachments had been removed; but, if they would, and he wished to cast the re- sponsibility upon them of holding it wrongfully, he should have taken care that prooeedings against himself, which he could control, should not bo stand as to enable them to hold it rightfully. Where a debt is attached which is bearing interest at the time of the attachment, the interest may con- tinue to run as an increment of the debt, and be held by the attachment with the debt, or be reeovered by the payee if he removes the attachment. Adams v. Cordis, 8 Pick. 260. But if it does not bear interest at that time, detention of it after- wards, during the pendency of the attachment, will not sub- ject it to interest. Prescott v. Parker, 4 Mass. 170; Oriental Bank V. Tremont Ins. Co. 4 Met. 1 ; Lyman v. Orr, 26 Vt. 119. At the time of these attachments the parties had neither set- tled, nor failed in the attempt to settle, the multifarioua claims growing out of the transactions involved, and clearly there had been no default then, on the part of the defendants, which would couvert this into a debt bearing interest. On principle and authority both the defendants are not yet charge- able with interest. �Questions are made about costs, and have been heard> ��� �