Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/39

PBBBY V. SHARPE. 25 �of attachment, until the validity and priority of the former, brought into question by the allegations of the bill, could be determined on final hearing. By consent of parties the injunction was modified, after the removal of the cause into this court, so far as to permit the sherifif of Fairfield county to sell the goods held by him under said levies, witb the proviso that the sheriff should hold and retain the proceeds of such sale in his possession until the further order of this court. �It is true that this consent was given by Sharpe with the qualifica- tion that he did not thereby enter his appearance in the suit, and reserving all rights to object to the jurisdiction ; but that could only have reference to the question of jurisdiction over his person, which •we have already decided. What is left is simply a question as to the appropriation of the fund in the hands of the sherifif. The injunction granted by the court has spent its force, and there is no longer a question as to staying by injunction proceedings in the state court. The parties themselves have agreed that the fund shall remain in its present custody, to abide the order of this court. �It is nevertheless still true that if the complainants have no equity to detain the fund for final disposition, the order should now be made authorizing the sheriff to pay it to Sharpe; and in this view it is material to determine whether such an equity exists. �So far as the objection now under consideration is Concerned, that there is open to the complainants an adequate remedy at law, the case of Wood x.Stanberry, 25 Ohio St. X60, seems conclusive. It ■was there adjudged that "where a sheriff has in his possession goods and chattels by virtue of a levy und'er an execution issued upon a void judgment, and aferwards levies, subject to his former levy, an order of attachment in favor of the creditors of the judgment debtor upon the same property and proceeds, or threatens to proceed, under the direction of the plaintiff in execution, to sell the same for the purpose of applying the proceeds upon the execution, the plaintiffs in attach- ment may restraiii the sale by injunction." �In meeting the objection urged here the court say, p. 150 : �"ihe remedy which an injunction affords tliem is complete, and no other process or proceeding is adequate to the preservation of their rights, or their just compensation for injuries, if the sale under the execution is permitted. They cannot appear in the case of Stanberrp v. Purviance and ask the court to recall the execution, for the reason that they are not parties therein; and for the same reason they cannot, upon the return of the execution, ask the court to control the proceeds of the sale for their beneflt ; nor can they, by proceed- ings in error, stay the execution or reverse the judgment upon which it was ��� �