
    Hollingsworth versus Adams.
    FOREIGN ATTACHMENT returnable to the prefent Term. The defendant was Rated to be a citizen of De-. ¿aware, in the proccfs which had iffiied; and M. Levy, having produced an affidavit in proof of that fait, moved to quafh the writ, on the ground, that the Federal Courts had no jurifdfction, in cafes of Foreign Attachment. By the 11th feSlion of the Judicial act (1 Vol. Swift’s Edit.p. 55) it is exprefsly- provided, that “ no perfon {hall be arreited in one Difir'iit for trial in another, in any civil a ilion before a Circuit, or DHlnct, Court: .And no civil fuit {hall be brought before either of the fa'id Courts againit’an inhabitant of the United States, by any original proccfs, in any other dftricl than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he jhall he found at the time of ferving the writ.” Now, this is a civil fuit, brought here by original proeefs againil the defendant, who is an iiihabitant of another diitrict, and was not found in Pennfylvania at the time of ferving the writ. ,.
    
      Thomas and Hallow ell, on-behalf'of the .plaintiff,
    wifhed for time to enquire into the practice; out not being able on the next day to affign any fatisfactory reafon in maintenance of the a ilion,
   The Court

directed the writ to be qua'ihed with coils.  