
    HUBBARD et al. v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    December 17, 1904.)
    Removal oe Causes—Jurisdiction—Suit in Rem.
    A suit begun in a state court by attachment of property, and removed into a federal eourt, will not there be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because there has been no personal service on defendant, custody of the res being recognized as giving jurisdiction.
    On Motion to Set Aside Service and to Vacate Attachment.
    F. W. M. Cutcheon, for the motion.
    Wm. D. Guthrie, opposed.
   LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The facts as to Rhett’s connection with defendant are set forth in greater detail, but the facts are substantially the same as were before this court in Reehan v. Central of Georgia (no opinion filed). The motion to set aside the service on him as representative of the defendant is granted.

The rule laid down in Purdy v. Wallace (C. C.) 81 Fed. 513, is a sound one, and should be followed here, and defendant have been actually informed of the pendency of the action before removal.

The motion to vacate the attachment is denied.  