It is a question whether the personal bag gage of a traveller can be reached or affect ed by attachment ; Western R. R. v. Thorn. ton, 60 Ga. 300.
Property in the hands of officers of court cannot be attached, as receivers; Martin v. Davis, 21 Ia. 537 ; Wiswall v. Sampson, 14 How. (U. S.) 52, 14 L. Ed. 322 ; Columbian Book Co. v. De Golyer, 115 Mass. 69 ; Glenn v. Gill, 2 Md. 1; Taylor v. Chilean, 23 Tex. 508 ; Field v. Jones, 11 Ga. 413 ; Nelson v. Conner, 6 Rob. (La.) 339 ; Langdon v. Lock ett, 6 Ala. 727, 41 Am. Dec. 78 ; Farmers' Bank of Delaware v. Beaston, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 421, 28 Am. Dec. 226 ; Gouverneur v. Warner, 2 Sandi. (N. Y.) '624; Yuba County v. Adams, 7 Cal. 35; Bentley v. Shrieve, 4 Md. Ch. 412; Robinson v. R. Co., 66 Pa. 160; an assignee in bankruptcy ; In re Cunning ham, 19 N. B. R. 276, Fed. Cas. No. 3478 ; or a sheriff ; Bradley v. Kesee, 5 Cold. (Tenn.) 223, 94 Am. Dec. 246.
The levy of an attachment does not change the estate of the defendant in the property attached; Bigelow v. Willson, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 485 ; Starr v. Moore, 3 McLean 354, Fed. Cas. No. 13,315 ; Perkins' Heirs v. Norvell, 6 Humphr. (Tenn.) 151; Snell v. Allen, 1 Swan. (Tenn.) 208 ; Oldham v. Scrivener, 3 B. Monr. (Ky.) 579; Sammis v. Sly, 54 Ohio St. 511, 44 N. E. 508, 56 Am. St. Rep. 731. Nor does the attaching plaintiff acquire any property thereby ; Bigelow v. Willson, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 485 ; Crocker v. Radcliffe, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 23 ; Willing v. Bleeker, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 221; Owings v. Norwood's Lessee, 2 Harr. & J. (Md.) 96 ; Goddard v. Perkins, 9 N. H. 488. Nor can he acquire through his attachment any higher or better rights to the property attached than the defendant had when the attachment was levied, unless he can show some fraud or collusion by which his rights are impaired ; Crocker v. Pierce, 31 Me. 177 ; Kentucky Refining Co. v. Bank, 89 S. W. 492, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 486.
The levy of an attachment constitutes a lien on the property or credits attached ; Goore v. McDaniel, 1 McCord (S. C.) 480: Peck v. Webber, 7 How. (Miss.) 658; Van Loan v. Kline, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 129; Daven port v. Lacon, 17 Conn. 278 ; Erskine v. Sta ley, 12 Leigh (Va.) 406 ; Moore v. Holt, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 284 ; Grigg v. Banks, 59 Ala.
311; Hervey v. Champion, 11 Humphr. (Tenn.) 569 ; Ziegenhager v. Doe, 1 Ind. 296 ; People v. Cameron, 2 Gilman (Ill.) 468 ; Pres ident, etc., of Franklin Bank v. Bachelder, 23 Me. 60, 39 Am. Dec. 601; Kittredge v. War ren, 14 N. H. 509; Vreeland v. Bruen, 21 N. J. L. 214 ; Downer v. Brackett, 21 Vt. 599, Fed. Cas. No. 4,043; In re Rowell, 21 Vt. 620, Fed. Cas. No. 12,095 ; Ingraham v. Phillips, 1 Day (Conn.) 117; Lackey v. Seibert, 23 Mo. 85 ; Hannahs v. Felt, 15 Ia. 141; Emery v. Yunt, 7 Colo. 107, 1 Pac. 686 ; Ward v. Mc Kenzie, 33 Tex. 297, 7 Am. Rep. 261; Davis Mill Co. v. Kan. App. 38, 49 Pac. 628 ; Beardslee v. Ingraham, 183 N. Y. 411, 76 N. E. 476, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1073 ; Perry v. Griefen, 99 Me. 420, 59 Atl. 601. But, as the whole office of an attachment is to seize and hold property until it can be subjected to execution, this lien is of no value unless the plaintiff obtain judgment against the de fendant and proceed to subject the property to execution.
Where two or more separate attachments are levied simultaneously on the same prop erty, they will be entitled each to an aliquot part of the proceeds of the property ; Durant v. Johnson, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 544 ; Campbell v. Huger, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 215 ; Nutter v. Con net, 3 B. Monr. (Ky.) 201; True v. Emery, 67 Me. 28 ; Wilson v. Blake, 53 Vt. 305 ; Thurs ton v. Huntington, 17 N. H. 438 ; see Love v. Harper, 4 Humphr. (Tenn.) 113 ; Yelverton v. Burton, 26 Pa. 351. Where several attach ments are levied successively on the same property, they have priority in the order in which they are sued out ; Lutter & Voss v. Grosse, 82 S. W. 278, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 585 ; and a junior attaching creditor may impeach a senior attachment, or judgment thereon, for fraud ; Pike v. Pike, 24 N. H. 384 ; Walker v. Roberts, 4 Rich. (S. C.) 561; M'cCluny v. Jackson, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 96; Smith v. Getting er, 3 Ga. 140 ; Reed v. Ennis, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 393 ; Hale v. Chandler, 3 Mich. 531; but not on account of irregularities ; Kincaid v. Neall, 3 McCord (S. C.) 201; Camberford v. Hall, 3 McCord (S. C.) 345; Walker v. Rob erts, 4 Rich. (S. C.) 561; In re Griswold, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 412.